Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

[JReducation]

The example that you’re giving is a very good one. In fact, it reminds me of Luther. Let me go to Luther first. Luther was an Augustinian. He as certainly a problem child. However, the Augustinians did not re-interpret the Rule of St. Augustine in order to deal with future Luthers. The problem was neither the Rule nor the understanding of the rule.

In this case, if the monks are faithfully living the monastic life as St. Benedict and the other fathers of monasticism dictated it, the problem is not the Rule of St. Benedict or the constitutions that fill in the gaps left by the rule. The problem is that the individual is a one of Benedict’s problem children.

The abbot responded correctly when asked if there was anything that needed changing. The answer is, “No.” What needed to change was the individual. The individual has to come into harmony with the vision and mission of the community as inspired by the Holy Spirit and approved by the Church.

In today’s daily bulletin from the Holy See, Pope Benedict reminds us that “Divine Revelation does not follow earthly logic.” It is we who accommodate to what has been revealed through Christ and what has been inspired through the Church, in this case, through St. Benedict.

Those religious who are out of compliance need to make the adjustment in their lives, not the religious live adjust in order to bring them into compliance or to prevent future non-compliance. That would be earthly logic, but that is not the logic that the Holy Spirit revealed to many founders. The logic revealed to the founders was that those who are out of compliance must be dealt with and that there are consequences for such behaviors.

We certainly have had abbots and superiors general who were loose cannons and problem children. They pose a challenge for the communities that they lead. The reason being that a male major superior is an Ordinary. He has all of the same powers as a bishop. He is not a bishop. Therefore, he does not have the sacramental powers of a bishop, He has the legal authority of a bishop.

In an abbey the abbot is the highest ranking authority. In an order or a congregation, the Superior General is the highest ranking authority. When there is something scary happening, such as the case that you described, the community must present its concerns to the Holy See, because there is no one higher inside the community. No community has the power to impeach its major superior no matter how sinful he is. The major superior governs in the name of the Holy Father. It’s not like in the military where the underling deems you incompetent, gets others to support his position and deposes you. You can’t do that in religious life or even in a diocese. It is what it is. Saint or sinner, the person in power has the right to be there until the Holy See or Canon Law state that he has forfeited that right.

The principle of Subsidiarity says that you resolve a problem at the lowest possible level. In plain English, you follow the chain of command, so that a child does not discipline his parent. However, he can request protection from those who have greater authority than the parent does. That would be the lowest possible level. The same applies to religious communities. This does not require changing the rules or constitutions using the wisdom of the secular world, since the law of the Church has already provided for this long before the world thought of it.

Some people misunderstand this as cover up. It’s not cover up, if the problem has been observed and reported to the proper authority. Cover up is when the problem is observed and you hide it. The law in the Church has never said that religious in a community were to keep secrets from the Holy See. It has happened, but it’s illegal to do so. That’s the nature of law. We can have all kinds of laws regarding speeding and all kinds of penalties and there are always going to be speeders. There are just going to be less of them, hopefully.

This kind of submission to the charism of the community and to the Holy See is part of the tradition that the Holy Spirit has breathed into the Church through the religious life. The operative word here is submission. When you submit, you surrender yourself. It is part of poverty. You give up what you value the most, your will. The Holy Spirit does not follow human logic. It’s just that once in a great while, human logic coincides with the logic of the Spirit. What you bring from the outside has to conform to the original vision and mission of the tradition.

To go back to errant religious, there is a way of dealing with these people without touching the tradition. The Church has systems in place for this. It always has had them. They were rather cumbersome at one time and they have been streamlined today. That’s outside of the religious life. That falls into the area of universal law to which all religious families must submit. Universal law always trumps the rule and constitutions, unless you have an indult or a dispensation from the law. There are many indults and dispensations given to religious order, congregations and societies of apostolic life, but hiding sin from Church authorities is not one of those indults or privileges. Even if you’re wrong, you should ask for help when you suspect that something is not quite right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Melchior,

You posted this in the vocations thread. Can you go a little more into what you mean?

You’ve heard me talk about austerity before, that’s a big one in an internal sense. That isn’t to say you can’t have fancy stuff or go to huge Masses of splendor, but it can’t distract you from the goal. Dominicans gain detachment through austerity, whereas Carmelites get austerity through detachment.

 

[Melchior_1]

*You’ve heard me talk about austerity before, that’s a big one in an internal sense. That isn’t to say you can’t have fancy stuff or go to huge Masses of splendor, but it can’t distract you from the goal. Dominicans gain detachment through austerity, whereas Carmelites get austerity through detachment. *

Melchior,

You posted this in the vocations thread. Can you go a little more into what you mean?

This is a great time of year to ask this question, because the liturgical season we’re in actually highlights the above.

For any mendicant, the goal is austerity. In all actions and all things, we seek to bring things “back to the basics”, to bring ourselves to the manger. Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, humbling Himself to be born among animals, shepherds, and hay. He was born into the world in nothing. We seek to emulate Christ in this fashion, by bringing ourselves to the manger.

Stripping things down to the essentials allows us to come closer to the child Jesus, to become as He was when He entered our temporal world. As a result of this, we gain detachment from the temporal realm and less desire to have things of the flesh.

Dominicans apply this differently than other mendicants, as the Order does need to have some possessions. Back in the day, that would be books, paper, pens, more books, writings, a side of books, a Suma or four, books, and also a few books. Nowadays there would still be books, and a Priory likely has a computer with the Internet to assist with research. Individuals can use technology like Kindles to aid research as well, so instead of throwing a small library of books in a car it’s all on a neat handheld reading device. The poverty is individual, not collective. This is still quite fraternal, as not only does the Order work together to use the collective items, but the collective also holds the individuals accountable.

To apply this to the laity, it would mean to “keep it simple”, and strip things down (spiritually and physically) to the essentials. If you have things that are getting in the way, remove them. If you can’t be a Magi, then be a Shepherd. Both went humbled themselves before the Child Jesus in the manger, one with high class gifts, the other with their mere presence. What a few traditionalists here have taken issue with is that I have said on a few occasions that the externals within Mass can cause people to lose sight of the goal, getting hung up on the Form. The Form is a means to the end, which is why most Dominicans can objectively look at the OF and EF (and their own Rite) and say “meh”. Mass is Mass, and at the end of the day if you get too attached to the externals of the Form, the time may be near where you need to re-think why you’re there, and try to get back to the manger.

That isn’t to say that Dominicans can’t celebrate high Masses and the like, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with high Masses in resplendent Churches and mass choirs and the like. But, again, it can’t be at the expense of humbling yourself before the Child Jesus, swaddled in blankets in the arms of our Immaculate Mother.

 

[jwinch2]

A quote on austerity from the Dominican prospective:

*The austerity of St. Dominic was for himself and his own children; but wherever there was the question of saving souls, we find only the gay sweet manner that men called magic, because they could not resist it; the familiarity that mixed with the people, and would let them cut his very habit to pieces rather sooner than drive them from his side; the tenderness that never wept but for the sufferings or the sins of others, and which, as the Castilians said, made penance itself seem easy, when it was preached to them by Master Dominic.

All labor came alike to him, and the rule that at other times laid such an iron grasp upon its subject, relaxed in a moment with the work of God was to be done. Then, too, how wonderful it is to find, along with all this popularity and preaching, the theological spirit never separated from any part of his design, building up every word on the foundation of Catholic truth, and aiming yet more at instruction than either eloquence or exhortation.*

Augusta T. Drane (Mother Frances Rapheal), OP

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

A quote on austerity from the Dominican prospective:

*The austerity of St. Dominic was for himself and his own children; but wherever there was the question of saving souls, we find only the gay sweet manner that men called magic, because they could not resist it; the familiarity that mixed with the people, and would let them cut his very habit to pieces rather sooner than drive them from his side; the tenderness that never wept but for the sufferings or the sins of others, and which, as the Castilians said, made penance itself seem easy, when it was preached to them by Master Dominic.

All labor came alike to him, and the rule that at other times laid such an iron grasp upon its subject, relaxed in a moment with the work of God was to be done. Then, too, how wonderful it is to find, along with all this popularity and preaching, the theological spirit never separated from any part of his design, building up every word on the foundation of Catholic truth, and aiming yet more at instruction than either eloquence or exhortation.*

Augusta T. Drane (Mother Frances Rapheal), OP

Peace,

To add to the example that you gave about the EF and OF, orders like the Carmelites, Franciscans, Servites and Trinitarians,who were founded upon the principles of poverty and obedience,which are inseparable, brought to the laity a spirit of detachment from the grand.

This has to be understood correctly. They did not teach that the grand liturgy with all of the bells and whistles was a bad thing. The heretics taught that. What they brought to the laity of was a sense of reverence that did not depend on the bells and whistles. When the means were available, the bells and whistles were used. However, when the means were not available, for whatever reason, the lay faithful and the religious in these communities were so grounded in the mystery of the Incarnation, as we see it at the creche that they didn’t miss the bells and whistles. They disciplined their spiritual lives to focus on the Incarnation.

The sacrifice of the mass did not stand alone. But it was the part of the journey from the Incarnation to the Resurrection.

I believe that this is why you see among the mendicants an interactive liturgy that goes back to the 13th century, whereas among the Clerks Regular and the secular clergy, the interaction is between the server and the priest.

In the mendicant and monastic spirituality there is strong focus on God’s entrance into human history. The God who breaks into human history interacts with man as a man. Christ does not do and man silently watches. There is a constant dialogue between God and man from at the annunciation, the birth of Christ, the events leading to the Passion, at the cross and at the Resurrection. What we see in this spirituality is that God draws man to himself and man responds in word and deed. This entire drama is played out during the mass.

As long as the whole drama is preserved and played out, the mendicants and monks are comfortable with either form of the mass. When the mass becomes a quiet participation from beginning to end, this jars the monk and the friar. He sees the mass as having both, quiet and interaction. Their vision of liturgy is very Marian. Mary did both, she interacted with the angel, with Christ and the Apostles, but she also silently treasured many things in her heart.

This is austerity. Austerity is the attempt to pay attention to what is not readily visible, but is a reality, the relationship between God and man and the ability to see that relationship played out regardless of the rite of the mass or the form within a specific rite. In our case it would be the Roman rite with is many forms.

This kind of austerity begins with austerity in the little things of daily life, such as detaching from what we don’t need and avoiding a sense of entitlement.

The problem with the extremes, left and right, is that too often the desire for something comes from a sense of entitlement, rather than a full understanding of the drama celebrated liturgy. The monks and friars were trained in this drama. To them, a simple mass in the OF or a high mass in the EF is all the same. It’s the same drama. They pay attention to the drama. We need to teach the world to see the drama of Christ’s incarnation, passion and resurrection in the mass. No matter where you are or whatever form is celebrated, the mass remains the same, even though the externals are different.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Just as a heads up Brother, it wasn’t me talking about liturgy and austerity together. But as always, thanks for your information and insight.

 

[jwinch2]

This love was taught to them and encourage by our Holy Father Dominic.

I was just re-reading this post to get some information for another thread and I caught this part which I must have skipped over the first time because I was trying to speed read a bit.

I just wanted to say that it brings a smile to my face to hear you call St. Dominic “our Holy Father”.

I hope you are doing well and feeling better in your illness.

 

[TrueLight]

Thank you Melchior, Jason and Br.Jay.

 

[WoundedIcon]

I have a question. I’m unable to become a friar due to illness, but I honestly believe that God has basically outright told me to become a Franciscan. However, I don’t feel particularly drawn to it - but I don’t know much about it either. How would a person go about living the Franciscan charism in the secular world? What difficulties are there? I lean toward the rich and grandiose, and have a traditionalist bent, so I’m wondering what to do with the temptations that come from that (criticizing superiors, liturgical forms, and of course the general inclination to nicer things). Also, as a subset of spirituality, I’ve sort of been thrust into many experiences that line up with Carmelite mysticism (let’s just say that those purifications are hellish, and for some reason I’m fixated on detachment as a means to mystical union). I know there’s a contemplative element to Franciscan life, but how would one go about merging the two spiritualities?

 

[iloveangels]

I have a question. I’m unable to become a friar due to illness, but I honestly believe that God has basically outright told me to become a Franciscan. However, I don’t feel particularly drawn to it - but I don’t know much about it either. How would a person go about living the Franciscan charism in the secular world? What difficulties are there? I lean toward the rich and grandiose, and have a traditionalist bent, so I’m wondering what to do with the temptations that come from that (criticizing superiors, liturgical forms, and of course the general inclination to nicer things). Also, as a subset of spirituality, I’ve sort of been thrust into many experiences that line up with Carmelite mysticism (let’s just say that those purifications are hellish, and for some reason I’m fixated on detachment as a means to mystical union). I know there’s a contemplative element to Franciscan life, but how would one go about merging the two spiritualities?

Do you have in mind joining a secular organization (secular meaning not living in a convent) or living out a charism on your own? That’s the first question for you to resolve for yourself.

 

[WoundedIcon]

I was thinking of investigating the SFO in fact. They actually meet a few miles away from here.

 

[iloveangels]

I was thinking of investigating the SFO in fact. They actually meet a few miles away from here.

You might want to contact them and arrange to attend a meeting or two as a visitor. That way you’ll be able to see how they work and what they’re like. You can also see some materials here: ciofs.org/en.htm That’s the webpage of the SFO in Rome.

God bless you and good luck with your search.

 

[JReducation]

I have a question. I’m unable to become a friar due to illness, but I honestly believe that God has basically outright told me to become a Franciscan. However, I don’t feel particularly drawn to it - but I don’t know much about it either. How would a person go about living the Franciscan charism in the secular world? What difficulties are there? I lean toward the rich and grandiose, and have a traditionalist bent, so I’m wondering what to do with the temptations that come from that (criticizing superiors, liturgical forms, and of course the general inclination to nicer things). Also, as a subset of spirituality, I’ve sort of been thrust into many experiences that line up with Carmelite mysticism (let’s just say that those purifications are hellish, and for some reason I’m fixated on detachment as a means to mystical union). I know there’s a contemplative element to Franciscan life, but how would one go about merging the two spiritualities?

I too suggest that you look at the SFO. However, I warn you, the mendicant orders have no problem with Traditionalism, but they have major problems with open criticism of the Holy See, the Vatican, the Councils, the CCC and Church law. Entrenched in their charism is fidelity to the Holy Father. If the Holy Father says that priests may celebrate mass in ruby slippers (GROSS!), they accept it with equanimity.

I suggest that you watch EWTN and observe the programs where the friars speak or even Mother Angelica’s classics. There is line that they do not cross. I remember when Mother accidently crossed the line once, I don’t think that she meant any harm. I think it was one of those knee-jerk reactions that all of us have at one moment or another. In any case, the Franciscan family pulled back like strings on a guitar. Mother had to write an apology and apologize on the air too.

I believe that I am correct when I say the mendicants, meaning: Servites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Trinitarians and Carmelites have been consequenced for crossing the line into open criticism and arrogance. Some have been suspended, dismissed from the order, excommunicated or simply put up for adoption.

Our holy fathers, Dominic and Francis lived through difficult times in the Church and the world around it, but they bit the bullet. I believe that something that they have to offer as an example to us is the power of truth without complaining. Everyone was open to hearing them, because Francis and Dominic never took sides on anything except what the Gospel said and what the Church commanded.

Two things that many people do not know. First, our Holy Father Dominic commanded his friars to place charity before preaching, because charity is its own sermon. He did not mean what many people today want to say, that charity demands that we be tough and demanding. Dominic meant kindness in manners, speech and demeanor. The Friar Preachers were to be humble, polite and kind teachers and preachers.

Second, Francis had no problems being around lepers, but avoided arguments and conflicts like the Black Plague. Even if he was right and the other person was wrong, he always backed down. He warned his sons and daughters not to be argumentative. Basically, the message was, “Bite your tongue and be quiet. Your sacrifice pleases God and man more than your being right.”

Francis uses the image of the corpse, which is rather morbid, but it makes the point very well. One must be like a corpse in the hands of authority.

Pray about it. Remember, you don’t have to have reached perfect obedience and humility in order to begin the Franciscan journey. You have to be willing to walk in that direction and at times be led by those whom you believe know less than you do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Two things that many people do not know. First, our Holy Father Dominic commanded his friars to place charity before preaching, because charity is its own sermon. He did not mean what many people today want to say, that charity demands that we be tough and demanding. Dominic meant kindness in manners, speech and demeanor. The Friar Preachers were to be humble, polite and kind teachers and preachers.

Excellent post Brother, thanks for your insight as always.

To my mind, charity is one of the more misunderstood aspects of Catholicism, which is why I wanted to piggyback on this particular comment. In addition to what you correctly pointed out, St. Dominic did not mean by charity what many today turn it into, which is a overt avoidance of hurting someone’s feelings or sensibilities at the expense of the truth. The truth was to be proclaimed boldly through their witness to the Gospel but also through words.

You talk from time to time about the American mindset as it relates to Franciscan ideals of obedience. I see the same thing with charity, in that many people would rather avoid telling others hard truths in order to spare their feelings or be politically correct. I believe that this would have bothered our Holy Father Dominic a great deal, and likely our Holy Father Francis as well, (though I could be wrong as I know little of St. Francis other than what you tell me or what I read in books about St. Dominic).

Many Catholics seem to have the impression that if you go 180 degrees the opposite direction from a deadly sin, you will find a cardinal virtue. This is not the case. Sometimes, the most charitable thing to do is telling the truth when A) it is hard to hear; or B) regardless if they want to hear it or not. Of course, the truth can and should be taught with compassion and love; and one must always take care that in being brutally honest, we don’t enjoy the brutal part too much, but rather the honesty.

 

[iloveangels]

Excellent post Brother, thanks for your insight as always.

To my mind, charity is one of the more misunderstood aspects of Catholicism, which is why I wanted to piggyback on this particular comment. In addition to what you correctly pointed out, St. Dominic did not mean by charity what many today turn it into, which is a overt avoidance of hurting someone’s feelings or sensibilities at the expense of the truth. The truth was to be proclaimed boldly through their witness to the Gospel but also through words.

You talk from time to time about the American mindset as it relates to Franciscan ideals of obedience. I see the same thing with charity, in that many people would rather avoid telling others hard truths in order to spare their feelings or be politically correct. I believe that this would have bothered our Holy Father Dominic a great deal, and likely our Holy Father Francis as well, (though I could be wrong as I know little of St. Francis other than what you tell me or what I read in books about St. Dominic).

Many Catholics seem to have the impression that if you go 180 degrees the opposite direction from a deadly sin, you will find a cardinal virtue. This is not the case. Sometimes, the most charitable thing to do is telling the truth when A) it is hard to hear; or B) regardless if they want to hear it or not. Of course, the truth can and should be taught with compassion and love; and one must always take care that in being brutally honest, we don’t enjoy the brutal part too much, but rather the honesty.

Agree, Jason. I think we Americans translate charity as love, which most Americans identify with emotion. Love is often not so much emotion as it is making the choice that we know is right. If you translate charity as emotion and are afraid to hurt someone’s emotions by doing the right thing in front of them, so you don’t do it, then I don’t know what that is. It’s probably not love.

The other thing that’s lost in American parlance is odd. For all of our posturing about “the truth will out,” and all that stuff, we seem not to be able to trust that truth wins. Eventually it always does. It is what it is. That’s what makes it true. Because of that, there’s a very real way in which we don’t have to fight God’s battles for him, because he’s doing just fine as he always does. We just have to go along with him and see what he’s doing, encouraging others to come with us and helping others to come along, because it’s the greatest experience someone can have. Somehow that gets lost.

 

[JReducation]

Excellent post Brother, thanks for your insight as always.

To my mind, charity is one of the more misunderstood aspects of Catholicism, which is why I wanted to piggyback on this particular comment. In addition to what you correctly pointed out, St. Dominic did not mean by charity what many today turn it into, which is a overt avoidance of hurting someone’s feelings or sensibilities at the expense of the truth. The truth was to be proclaimed boldly through their witness to the Gospel but also through words.

You talk from time to time about the American mindset as it relates to Franciscan ideals of obedience. I see the same thing with charity, in that many people would rather avoid telling others hard truths in order to spare their feelings or be politically correct. I believe that this would have bothered our Holy Father Dominic a great deal, and likely our Holy Father Francis as well, (though I could be wrong as I know little of St. Francis other than what you tell me or what I read in books about St. Dominic).

Many Catholics seem to have the impression that if you go 180 degrees the opposite direction from a deadly sin, you will find a cardinal virtue. This is not the case. Sometimes, the most charitable thing to do is telling the truth when A) it is hard to hear; or B) regardless if they want to hear it or not. Of course, the truth can and should be taught with compassion and love; and one must always take care that in being brutally honest, we don’t enjoy the brutal part too much, but rather the honesty.

We must be very careful here. The mendicant fathers were not sandpaper either. Many believe the other extreme, that truth has to be blunt and at times ruthless. Not at all, Dominic and Francis were known for being absolutely charming. Anthony fits in there too. These men had the ability to tell the truth without hurting people. They were charming, persuasive and most of all, patient. They waited for the right moment. They were not Americans. We tend to think of charity either as a feeling or as some kind of bravado. They were neither. If they sinned, it was on the side of feeling. They hurt when others hurt, so they avoided causing pain. They found the most charming and persuasive means to teach truth. In our American culture, we tend to be either PC or in your face. Dominic and Francis were neither. They were clever in how they said things.

Francis was of the opinion that if you had to be rude and harsh in order to speak truth, then keep your mouth shut and let someone else who can do it with politeness do the job.

This is where the famous saying comes from, “Preach always and when necessary use words.” Francis actually never said this. Thomas of Celano describes Francis as the man who preached always, but only when necessary used words. The reason, Celano explains to us, is that Francis abhorred bad manners. Remember, he was a Troubadour. While he would not lie to spare someone’s feelings, he avoided speaking, if he could not spare someone’s feelings and he taught his friars to do the same.

There is are wonderful stories about Anthony of Padua going into towns to fight heretics. People waited to see a sparring match. Anthony always chose the farthest corner away from the heretics so as to avoid engaging them. Let’s say that the heretics were teaching error about the Eucharist, Anthony would teach the truth about the Eucharist, but would never make mention of the heretic down the road. He played dumb. He was very famous for playing dumb. He pretended that he had never heard of such a person. This he did so as to avoid saying something disparaging.

There are similar stories about Aquinas and Dominic. They were not like sandpaper, nor were they politicians. The best way to describe them is diplomatic. They knew that there was a right way and a wrong way of speaking truth, a right time and a wrong time.

They picked their moment and their method. Aquinas was famous for his ability to teach great truth without ever using the pronoun “you.” We always remember the poor man for his writing and few people bother to get to know the man behind those magnificent writings. There was the biggest, fattest and most gentle bear in the world.

These men were incredible. They spoke the truth. They did not hurt people’s feelings. They preached and taught with great charm and even humor. Francis and Dominic were famous for using metaphors rather than speaking directly to people. This way, they delivered the message, but did not destroy the listener. They were very conscious of the fact that you catch more bees with honey and that the pre-requisite to conversion is trust. If you came out attacking, you had lost the war before you began the battle. They were trusted by their audience, because they were known for their great warmth and kindness in all things.

Dominic never preached without giving people a dose of kindness. He always left people feeling good and glad that he had come. He had an incredible wit and an even more incredible patience. He has not made of sandpaper. He was not much of a looker, but he was a beautiful person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

We must be very careful here. The mendicant fathers were not sandpaper either. Many believe the other extreme, that truth has to be blunt and at times ruthless.

I appreciate the info as always but frankly I am not seeing where I suggested otherwise. Unless there is something I am missing? I’m not sure if that was directed at my comments or just in general.

As for the rest, I agree completely that while hard truths must be told, they should always be told with kindness and love. From reading Dominic, I can see several times when he told people things that they did not necessarily wish to hear, yet he said them anyway and did so not just with love, but also* because* of love.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate the info as always but frankly I am not seeing where I suggested otherwise. Unless there is something I am missing? I’m not sure if that was directed at my comments or just in general.

As for the rest, I agree completely that while hard truths must be told, they should always be told with kindness and love. From reading Dominic, I can see several times when he told people things that they did not necessarily wish to hear, yet he said them anyway and did so not just with love, but also* because* of love.

I was not referring to you. I was addressing anyone who may be reading. There is a tendency among some people in Traddom to believe that truth must be ruthless, which is not what the great preachers of history advocated or practiced.

They often said things that people didn’t want to hear. Unlike some of these folks, the Mendicant Fathers mastered the art of diplomacy and the mothers too.

There is a very famous dialogue between St. Clare and Pope Gregory IX. He was in Assisi to canonize Francis. While he was there, he took the time to visit with Mother Clare. He told her that the rule for her sisters was to hard and that he was going to dispense her from some of her obligations, to which she responded,

“Your Lordship, I do not need to be absolved from my duties, but if you’re in a generous mind today, I would gladly accept absolution from my sins.” They say that Pope Gregory laughed. She delivered the message without the bite.

On another occasion, Francis was asked to say something to a priest who was living in sin. He was annoyed that people were not minding their own business. Francis did not tolerate people observing others. He even went as far as to prohibit this in his admonitions, so did Augustine in his rule.

Francis, with his typical flare for the unexpected responded, “I refuse to see sin in priests, for they adminster to me the Holy Eucharist, which is the only visible sign that I have of our dear Lord and it is they alone who can absolve me from sin.”

He never said, “Mind your own business.” He simply told them that he made it a practice to mind his business.

Another story about St. Anthony is that he was invited by the local pastor to preach at his parish. When he arrived, the people were rude and not interested in what he had to say. There was a lake just outside of the Church. He walked outside and stood by the edge of the lake and preached to the fish. When people saw him talking toward the lake, they gathered round to listen to what he had to say to the fish. Again, rather than act like sandpaper, he chose to use comedy to get their attention. Anthony was famous for using comedy in his delivery. Francis used humor. Dominic used gentleness.

One of my favorite communicators is Bl. John XXIII. He had a way of delivering the truth with a smile. Once, while attending a state dinner at the Vatican embassy in Paris, the French First Lady was sitting next to him with a very low neckline.

At the end of dinner, he offered her an apple. She declined. He offered it again. Again she declined. He gently insisted that she try the apple. She said, “You Excellency, why do you insist that I eat an apple.”

Bl. John responded, “Madam, it wasn’t until Eve ate the apple that she realized how naked she was.” He smiled and handed her the apple.

That is called teaching truth without sandpaper. If people are going to be upset, let it be because they choose to be upset, not because you gave them a reason to be upset.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

I was not referring to you. I was addressing anyone who may be reading. There is a tendency among some people in Traddom to believe that truth must be ruthless, which is not what the great preachers of history advocated or practiced.

They often said things that people didn’t want to hear. Unlike some of these folks, the Mendicant Fathers mastered the art of diplomacy and the mothers too.

There is a very famous dialogue between St. Clare and Pope Gregory IX. He was in Assisi to canonize Francis. While he was there, he took the time to visit with Mother Clare. He told her that the rule for her sisters was to hard and that he was going to dispense her from some of her obligations, to which she responded,

“Your Lordship, I do not need to be absolved from my duties, but if you’re in a generous mind today, I would gladly accept absolution from my sins.” They say that Pope Gregory laughed. She delivered the message without the bite.

On another occasion, Francis was asked to say something to a priest who was living in sin. He was annoyed that people were not minding their own business. Francis did not tolerate people observing others. He even went as far as to prohibit this in his admonitions, so did Augustine in his rule.

Francis, with his typical flare for the unexpected responded, “I refuse to see sin in priests, for they adminster to me the Holy Eucharist, which is the only visible sign that I have of our dear Lord and it is they alone who can absolve me from sin.”

He never said, “Mind your own business.” He simply told them that he made it a practice to mind his business.

Another story about St. Anthony is that he was invited by the local pastor to preach at his parish. When he arrived, the people were rude and not interested in what he had to say. There was a lake just outside of the Church. He walked outside and stood by the edge of the lake and preached to the fish. When people saw him talking toward the lake, they gathered round to listen to what he had to say to the fish. Again, rather than act like sandpaper, he chose to use comedy to get their attention. Anthony was famous for using comedy in his delivery. Francis used humor. Dominic used gentleness.

One of my favorite communicators is Bl. John XXIII. He had a way of delivering the truth with a smile. Once, while attending a state dinner at the Vatican embassy in Paris, the French First Lady was sitting next to him with a very low neckline.

At the end of dinner, he offered her an apple. She declined. He offered it again. Again she declined. He gently insisted that she try the apple. She said, “You Excellency, why do you insist that I eat an apple.”

Bl. John responded, “Madam, it wasn’t until Eve ate the apple that she realized how naked she was.” He smiled and handed her the apple.

That is called teaching truth without sandpaper. If people are going to be upset, let it be because they choose to be upset, not because you gave them a reason to be upset.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

Thanks for clarifying that and for the interesting stories as well. I can also see from Blessed John that while he told the truth with a smile, he wasn’t above a twisting the knife a little bit from time to time.

 

[Lamafacaja]

Here’s a Catholic Spirituality Selector quiz for fun.

Here are my results.

           1. Benedictine   	
       2. Franciscan   	
           3.Missionaries of Charity   	
           4.Dominican   	
           5. Opus Dei   	
           6.Jesuit