Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

[Marauder]

But…I also think about the kids at my Church, how some of them come from families with two cars and a house. They have fancy toys. Those teens need someone to help them find Christ. And that’s usually not where Franciscans are going to be found, and that’s where I truly feel I’m needed.

Sigh. Why can’t this be as easy as getting married?

First off, don’t forget that you can still have aspects of both in either tradition. There is nothing stopping you from being a Franciscan and taking an intellectual approach. There is nothing stopping you from being a Dominican and taking a lunchbox approach. That is just the method that the Order tends to go.

As for helping teens find positive outlets even though they are in fancy families. There would be nothing stopping you from doing that in the Secular branches of either Order. If you joined the religious of either Order you would only be allowed to service them if your superiors said you could, but as a secular you wouldn’t have to obtain permission. Whether your fraternity would serve that group as a whole would depend on the wishes of the fraternity and the council.

P.S. In marriage getting married is easy, its maintaining the marriage that is hard. This can also be reflected in the secular Orders.

 

[jwinch2]

But…I also think about the kids at my Church, how some of them come from families with two cars and a house. They have fancy toys. Those teens need someone to help them find Christ. And that’s usually not where Franciscans are going to be found, and that’s where I truly feel I’m needed.

Great points in my view. Spiritual poverty is important, and rampant.

Sigh. Why can’t this be as easy as getting married?

:bigyikes: I’m staying away from that one.

 

[Melchior_1]

As for helping teens find positive outlets even though they are in fancy families. There would be nothing stopping you from doing that in the Secular branches of either Order. ** If you joined the religious of either Order you would only be allowed to service them if your superiors said you could**, but as a secular you wouldn’t have to obtain permission. Whether your fraternity would serve that group as a whole would depend on the wishes of the fraternity and the council.

The bolded is the big part. It’s very much on my heart that if God decides that my wife will pass away before I do, I’m going all-in with the Order. Whichever Secular Order I join, I’ll be in, full stop to go First Order. It gnaws at me a bit due to what Jason mentioned:

Great points in my view. Spiritual poverty is important, and rampant.

The youth of today have so much spiritual poverty. They have their computers, their iPhones, their shoes, post secondary education, in some cases tattoos, dying their hair, hitting a tanning salon. They have everything they could ever want, yet they are still impoverished. And the kids, like I did, who come from broken homes. They have no stable paternal figure in their lives.

I’m 30 years old with a one year old son, and I’m married. It’s not just the teens that see me as a paternal figure, but the other volunteers. I’m ten years older than our current youth coordinator *who is the fourth one I’ve worked with over the last nine years at my parish), and he leans on me for guidance and support.

Those things above? Pure mendicant. Which makes things easier, as it narrows things down.

I don’t see things slowing down, ministry wise. God has clearly set things up in my life where for the next while that’s what is what will be the focus of my life within ministry. The question is more of the approach, the spirituality, and the “long game”. Working with people regardless of their income, where they live, all that I care about is bringing youth and young adults closer to Christ. Teaching kids who go to “Catholic” schools about the Truth, teaching RCIA for youth/young adults. Being that paternal figure towards others. Building fraternity, which literally saved my life. My best man brought me into his household when I was homeless, and the bonds I formed with some of the men who lived in that house are tighter than what I have with my own flesh and blood.

I love both Dominic and Francis so much, and model my life after the both of them. In a way, it seems almost not fair that I would have to chose to live by the Rules of one over the other. What concerns me is that joining one, I’ll be missing out on what my passion is, and on the people that I feel like God wants me to minister to. Perhaps Brother JR can chime in, but how many Franciscans minister to families who make six figures a year, but their kids have less spiritual riches than someone from Calcutta?

It’s difficult. More difficult than marriage, in the sense that when I knew that my wife was going to be my wife, that was going to happen. Period. This feels like the stage when I was single and hadn’t yet met her. It’s literally like I’m in love with two beautiful women at the same time, and I’m trying to figure out which one God wants me to be with. And considering what I said before; if my wife ever passes away before I do then this would become a literal life long commitment with vows.

I dunno.

Thanks for responding gentlemen, and thank you for sharing. And thanks for letting me ramble. And as always, thank you for the information (and any further information/thoughts you all will mention later).

 

[Marauder]

The bolded is the big part. It’s very much on my heart that if God decides that my wife will pass away before I do, I’m going all-in with the Order. Whichever Secular Order I join, I’ll be in, full stop to go First Order. It gnaws at me a bit due to what Jason mentioned:

I personally don’t think you should base what Secular Order you may join on what Order you would eventually join their first Order. You should base it on many other things but that is not the best thing. Since you are married with a kid, BOTH responsibilities must be dealt with before you would ever be allowed to join a Religious Order. That would also assume that your responsibility to provide for your kid and you were widowed before you meet the maximum formation age for the Order to which you would want to join. Most of which except for some exceptions tend to max out in the 40s. I think you should base everything on things based on your current life as you are living it now and how interested you are in the respective Orders, their founders and their charisms.

Perhaps Brother JR can chime in, but how many Franciscans minister to families who make six figures a year, but their kids have less spiritual riches than someone from Calcutta?

This would all depend on where people are assigned. I know Franciscans that are currently assigned to parishes where people make six figures. Is it the ideal, No, but it happens. The friary near me is in the middle of one of the richest counties in the country. It has been there for a long time, it was just farmland when it was founded. I am pretty sure many of the families that go to Mass at their chapel make six figures. This same friary (which also is the province house and used to be its novitiate) has ministries in inner city Baltimore and throughout the East Coast that serve the poor. It has only been within the last 10 or so years that they opened up the friary for Masses, spiritual direction, etc. for the locals. I am sure the money coming in from the six figure salary earners is helping provide for their inner city, Jamaican, and African outreaches. The ideal is to serve the poor, but it doesn’t prevent you from also serving those that aren’t poor.

Secular Franciscans I am sure have ministries that may or may not involve people that make six figures. I am currently an inactive Scout leader (inactive since I now have 2 young kids, when I was the leader I didn’t have any) but I had kids in the troop where the parents made 6 figures. As a secular it is up to you in conjunction with your spiritual director to figure out who you will serve.

 

[jwinch2]

I personally don’t think you should base what Secular Order you may join on what Order you would eventually join their first Order. You should base it on many other things but that is not the best thing. Since you are married with a kid, BOTH responsibilities must be dealt with before you would ever be allowed to join a Religious Order. That would also assume that your responsibility to provide for your kid and you were widowed before you meet the maximum age for the Order to which you would want to join. Most of which except for some exceptions tend to max out in the 40s. I think you should base everything on things based on your current life as you are living it now and how interested you are in the respective Orders, their founders and their charisms.

I agree with this completely. The likelihood that you will be within age requirement and able to start formation at that time is low at best. Some groups might consider late vocations, but most do not.

This would all depend on where people are assigned. I know Franciscans that are currently assigned to parishes where people make six figures. Is it the ideal, No, but it happens. The friary near me is in the middle of one of the riches counties in the country. It has been there for a long time, it was just farmland when it was founded. I am pretty sure many of the families that go to Mass at their chapel make six figures. This same friary (which also is the province house) has ministries in inner city Baltimore and throughout the East Coast that serve the poor. It has only been within the last 10 or so years that they opened up the friary for Masses, spiritual direction, etc. for the locals. I am sure the money coming in from the six figure salary earners is helping provide for their inner city, Jamaican, and African outreaches. The ideal is to serve the poor, but it doesn’t prevent you from also serving those that aren’t poor.

Secular Franciscans I am sure have ministries that may or may not involve people that make six figures. I am currently an inactive Scout leader (inactive since I now have 2 young kids, when I was the leader I didn’t have any) but I kids in the troop where the parents made 6 figures. As a secular it is up to you in conjunction with your spiritual director to figure out who you will serve.

Agreed also. I know a TOR Franciscan who told me his community made a deliberate decision to stay involved with a particular boarding school because of this reason. All of the families were quite rich, but the kids were lost spiritually and otherwise. The parents treated as a way to get their kids taken care and educated without their direct involvement.

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

I am sure the money coming in from the six figure salary earners is helping provide for their inner city, Jamaican, and African outreaches. The ideal is to serve the poor, but it doesn’t prevent you from also serving those that aren’t poor.
.

That usually does not happen. Parishes are owned by the diocese, not the religious who run them. The religious community is paid a monthly salary for a fixed number of men. Let’s say that the diocese considers St. X parish to be a three man parish, it will pay the Franciscans three salaries. If there are five men in the house, the three salaries have to feed all of them. However, the province levies a type of tax on each house. From those three salaries, the friars send a fixed amount to the provincialate once a year.

The rest of the money that comes in remains in the parish’s bank accounts until the bishop asks for it. It may never be used to help poor schools or missions that the friars have in other places. That money does not belong to the friars. That’s part of our vow of poverty. We have to make due with what we are paid.

It would be form those three salaries that the five men in the house would live and draw money to help the friars in the mission or the inner city, never from the parish. That money legally belongs to the bishop.

What I’ve seen done is that a parish can have a special collection for the missions of the order. We do it for other works of charity, why not for the order that serves in the parish. In that case, that money must go to its designation. The local friars cannot use any of it. Canon Law is very strict about how money is allocated and who uses what.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

I agree with this completely. The likelihood that you will be within age requirement and able to start formation at that time is low at best. Some groups might consider late vocations, but most do not.

You never know what may happen though. And really, it’s mostly a method of thinking to help me decide which is right for me.

Agreed also. I know a TOR Franciscan who told me his community made a deliberate decision to stay involved with a particular boarding school because of this reason. All of the families were quite rich, but the kids were lost spiritually and otherwise. The parents treated as a way to get their kids taken care and educated without their direct involvement.

I’m aware this happens, but I’m not sure it’s the norm.

 

[jwinch2]

I’m aware this happens, but I’m not sure it’s the norm.

Probably not. But I did get the distinct impression that it wasn’t that uncommon, for the TOR anyway. However, if you really want to focus on spiritual poverty, education, etc. the Order of Preachers is probably a choice more closely aligned with that aim, as you already know.

 

[JReducation]

It is not the norm for Franciscans of any obedience. However, there are situations when their presence is needed. Very often it can happen that you have a group of kids like this and you have to look beyond the car their parents drive and see the neglected child.

It’s like my work in pro-life ministry. Not every pre-born baby I try to save is poor or every sick person threatened with euthanasia. You look beyond the economics and you realize that their money can’t buy what they need, which is dignity.

It’s the same with these kids. All the money in the world is not going to provide a home for them. Whereas the friars, because of our strong sense of brotherhood in the Franciscan family, can provide a home while they are at school. These kids are homeless. What else do you call a child who has been neglected by his parents?

It’s not as if they were staying on at Harvard.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

It is not the norm for Franciscans of any obedience. However, there are situations when their presence is needed. Very often it can happen that you have a group of kids like this and you have to look beyond the car their parents drive and see the neglected child.

It’s like my work in pro-life ministry. Not every pre-born baby I try to save is poor or every sick person threatened with euthanasia. You look beyond the economics and you realize that their money can’t buy what they need, which is dignity.

It’s the same with these kids. All the money in the world is not going to provide a home for them. Whereas the friars, because of our strong sense of brotherhood in the Franciscan family, can provide a home while they are at school. These kids are homeless. What else do you call a child who has been neglected by his parents?

It’s not as if they were staying on at Harvard.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you as always, Brother. What you just said is definitely food for thought.

 

[iloveangels]

I personally don’t think you should base what Secular Order you may join on what Order you would eventually join their first Order. You should base it on many other things but that is not the best thing. Since you are married with a kid, BOTH responsibilities must be dealt with before you would ever be allowed to join a Religious Order. That would also assume that your responsibility to provide for your kid and you were widowed before you meet the maximum formation age for the Order to which you would want to join. Most of which except for some exceptions tend to max out in the 40s. I think you should base everything on things based on your current life as you are living it now and how interested you are in the respective Orders, their founders and their charisms.

I agree. Third orders aren’t just the cheap seats. For instance, although the SFO shares properties with the OFMs and all the other members of the Franciscan family, the charisms are distinct one from another. Besides it sounds like you have long-term obligations already.

This would all depend on where people are assigned. I know Franciscans that are currently assigned to parishes where people make six figures. Is it the ideal, No, but it happens. The friary near me is in the middle of one of the richest counties in the country. It has been there for a long time, it was just farmland when it was founded. I am pretty sure many of the families that go to Mass at their chapel make six figures. This same friary (which also is the province house and used to be its novitiate) has ministries in inner city Baltimore and throughout the East Coast that serve the poor. It has only been within the last 10 or so years that they opened up the friary for Masses, spiritual direction, etc. for the locals. I am sure the money coming in from the six figure salary earners is helping provide for their inner city, Jamaican, and African outreaches. The ideal is to serve the poor, but it doesn’t prevent you from also serving those that aren’t poor.

Secular Franciscans I am sure have ministries that may or may not involve people that make six figures. I am currently an inactive Scout leader (inactive since I now have 2 young kids, when I was the leader I didn’t have any) but I had kids in the troop where the parents made 6 figures. As a secular it is up to you in conjunction with your spiritual director to figure out who you will serve.

People often get kind of stuck on the “doing” that orders do, but that’s something that really belongs to a later generation of congregations, founded after the Orders in the 17th-19th centuries. The charisms of the orders proper are really more about the irreducible properties of “being” that demonstrate that Christianity is liveable, transcendent, etc. And consequently, there’s usually also fairly elaborate theology pieces that go with these early foundations.

On another thread, we’ve talked about this so I don’t want to repeat it here very much, but it’s something we sometimes see in formation in the SFO. People think they have to become social workers or something if they join the Franciscans, but no. There are many Franciscans who do all kinds of work, even literary, professorial and teaching work, as well as those who do ministry and social work. After all, somebody’s doing all that “Franciscan Studies” stuff, right?

Being a Secular Franciscan (and I can’t speak for the other branches at all) is more about how you approach your work than what work you’re doing. It’s more about what you think you have to have and what you can give away than what you have. It more about how you treat people because of Who you see in them, rather than what they have. It’s more about whether you take the Gospel seriously than whether you own two copies of it rather than one. Does that make any sense?

 

[iloveangels]

I’ve read that the charism of the SFO is about penance, while the charism of the OFM is about minority & poverty. [The PoorClares had a different slant on this yet, completely complicated by the difficulties with the women’s rule and the expectations of women in the 13th century.]

[Please correct me and tell me I’m all wet if I’m wrong, Br. JR.]

So the charisms of the respective orders in the family are a little bit different. Not only that but language changes with time. The word “penance” in the 12th century meant “conversion,” or “radical change in one’s life in the direction of the Gospel.” You see, Francis lived in a time of much corruption and confusion and he was actively preaching the Gospels to those who may not have ever lived them out before. You can see it in many of his writings which were often no more than selected Bible verses strung together to make his [usually biblical] point.

In intervening centuries, the word “penance” has taken on a more specific technical meaning. It means the objectified actions that one might use to obtain conversion, things like fasting, extra prayers, satisfaction for sins and so on. See the difference?

Third Order members were supposed to convert their lives and become thorough-going Gospel Christian Catholics, while living their lives in families, work and their obligations, the best they could. This is what Seculars are still supposed to do.

Minority the way it was practiced and still is, on top of the Gospel teachings, is something slightly different. It really means being with the least in society in a physical fashion. Like kissing the leper. It models the humility of God in the Incarnation in a radical way, and it models the dignity of every human being no matter how poor and sick–all at the same time.

All of the orders in the Franciscan family share some things like fraternity and so on, but there are some differences in the respective charisms. We each have our own rules too, and constitutions.

And of course, as Br JR alludes to in his example, one of the strange things that goes on in this age, is that the notions of poverty and doing without are much different in some ways than they were just 50 years ago. A person can have a lot of money and still not realize that they have any human worth at all. People die for the want of a little bit of human respect or a little bit of faith in our culture. The modern world can be a very cold and demeaning place because everything is mechanical and about money and power.

 

[Marauder]

That usually does not happen. Parishes are owned by the diocese, not the religious who run them. The religious community is paid a monthly salary for a fixed number of men. Let’s say that the diocese considers St. X parish to be a three man parish, it will pay the Franciscans three salaries. If there are five men in the house, the three salaries have to feed all of them. However, the province levies a type of tax on each house. From those three salaries, the friars send a fixed amount to the provincialate once a year.

Actually in the case of this friary it isn’t a parish church. It is a chapel within a friary. The friary itself use to be the novitiate until they started sending people to places like Catholic U. While it was a novitiate they didn’t allow many people from the outside world to come in. The ordained in residence would assist at the local parish church and you would occasionally see other members in the community. All the outreaches were to inner city Baltimore, Jamaica and Africa. About 10 years ago (give or take) they increased the size of their chapel and opened up their doors to the local community. Now they offer retreats, daily Mass, healing Masses and spiritual direction. Just within the last year they have been blessed to have some portions of the novitiate return to the friary. Also on the same property as the friary is the province house. This is all a portion of a 310 acre donation to the Conventual friars in the 1920’s.

 

[JReducation]

Actually in the case of this friary it isn’t a parish church. It is a chapel within a friary. The friary itself use to be the novitiate until they started sending people to places like Catholic U. While it was a novitiate they didn’t allow many people from the outside world to come in. The ordained in residence would assist at the local parish church and you would occasionally see other members in the community. All the outreaches were to inner city Baltimore, Jamaica and Africa. About 10 years ago (give or take) they increased the size of their chapel and opened up their doors to the local community. Now they offer retreats, daily Mass, healing Masses and spiritual direction. Just within the last year they have been blessed to have some portions of the novitiate return to the friary. Also on the same property as the friary is the province house. This is all a portion of a 310 acre donation to the Conventual friars in the 1920’s.

OK, you’re talking about a private chapel then, not a parish. The bishop and the diocese have no jurisdiction there except to grant faculties to the friars and to grant permission to keep the Blessed Sacrament. Everything else falls under the Holy See. Franciscans hold the deeds to the properties, because civil law requires this. The Holy See actually owns it all and it dictates to the Minister General how to use these assets. This trickles down to the Ministers Provincial. We all have a manual called the Modus Procedendi, the Manner of Proceeding, which tells you exactly what to do in each situation. For example, you can’t sell a property without the proper permission. The money from the sale can go to this, but not that.

The Definitorium (Provincial Council) will recommend to the Provincial Minister what to do with the money that comes in via that friary. He has the last word on the matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

For those following along, I am leaving a redirect to this thread from another one where the conversation took a turn which was more appropriate here. Here is the thread in question: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=575777. What I am discussing below is a continuation of a discussion which began at approximately post #263.

Ok. Well, since I cannot see any conflict between the two, and I don’t know what is in your mind when you use the term “charismatic renewal” I am quite certain I could not produce any references that will satisfy you. I am sure we are in agreement that there have been many abuses in the so called charismatic movement that do not belong in the Monastery or the Mass. However, I can see nothing about these charismatic monks, nuns and oblates that is contrary to Monastic Traditions. I think the types of "activities’ are entirely relevant, because it is clear that many activities espoused by the “movement” are inappropriate no matter where they are found.

I am aware that there are activities common to those in the Charismatic Movement which are not really supposed to be there. It probably goes without saying, but just for sake of clarity, I don’t believe that those practices have any place in the Church at all, let alone within Monastic Tradition.

However, for the sake of discussion, lets focus on the legitimate manifestations of the Charismatic Renewal as approved by the Church.

As near as I can tell, the Charismatic Renewal began to really take shape in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. It is widely claimed to be one of the fruits of Vatican II. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way as I happen to like V2 quite a bit, if not always the way it has been implemented, but that is another story.

One of the other things which came out of Vatican II was a call for religious communities to return to the roots of their tradition, seeking out the charism of their founder and looking for ways to bring that into the modern world. Obviously, that does suggest that looking for new ways to express the spirituality of a given religious congregation might be in order. But the key there is their own spirituality, not someone else’s. Based upon everything I have seen on Perfectae Caritatis, communities were supposed to look within their own tradition, not outside of it. The roots of Benedictine Spirituality would seem to be in the Desert Fathers, the writings of Saint Benedict in the Rule and the manner in which the Rule was interpreted shortly following Benedict, and certain other writers such as Saint John Cassian, the Rule of the Master, etc.

So, hopefully that has given proper context for the question which I have asked before and will now ask again with clarification. Are you aware of anything within Benedictine or Monastic Tradition, particularly within the roots of that Tradition, which would suggest that there is a legitimate place within them for the Charismatic Renewal?

 

[wasserfall]

One of the other things which came out of Vatican II was a call for religious communities to return to the roots of their tradition, seeking out the charism of their founder and looking for ways to bring that into the modern world.

Hmmm, then what went wrong with OCSO?

 

[jwinch2]

Hmmm, then what went wrong with OCSO?

No idea. Nothing that I can tell. Their tradition is strict obedience to the Rule of Saint Benedict, so I guess that is where they are at and where they will remain. They do have websites…

 

[wasserfall]

No idea. Nothing that I can tell. Their tradition is strict obedience to the Rule of Saint Benedict, so I guess that is where they are at and where they will remain. They do have websites…

Well I admit I am not an expert on the rule of St. Benedict, but when OCSO was founded, SO meant an extremely austere and penitential life. After Vatican II it seemed to morph into a bunch of guitar strumming hippies.

Well maybe that’s a bit overstating the case, but they tossed out all the ‘strict’ part of OCSO.

 

[guanophore]

However, for the sake of discussion, lets focus on the legitimate manifestations of the Charismatic Renewal as approved by the Church.

As near as I can tell, the Charismatic Renewal began to really take shape in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. It is widely claimed to be one of the fruits of Vatican II. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way as I happen to like V2 quite a bit, if not always the way it has been implemented, but that is another story.

One of the other things which came out of Vatican II was a call for religious communities to return to the roots of their tradition, seeking out the charism of their founder and looking for ways to bring that into the modern world. Obviously, that does suggest that looking for new ways to express the spirituality of a given religious congregation might be in order. But the key there is their own spirituality, not someone else’s. Based upon everything I have seen on Perfectae Caritatis, communities were supposed to look within their own tradition, not outside of it. The roots of Benedictine Spirituality would seem to be in the Desert Fathers, the writings of Saint Benedict in the Rule and the manner in which the Rule was interpreted shortly following Benedict, and certain other writers such as Saint John Cassian, the Rule of the Master, etc.

So, hopefully that has given proper context for the question which I have asked before and will now ask again with clarification. Are you aware of anything within Benedictine or Monastic Tradition, particularly within the roots of that Tradition, which would suggest that there is a legitimate place within them for the Charismatic Renewal?

I don’t see any Catholic practice that must exclude Charismatic spirituality. You seem to be assuming that none of the Desert fathers had charismatic experiences?

 

[jwinch2]

Well I admit I am not an expert on the rule of St. Benedict, but when OCSO was founded, SO meant an extremely austere and penitential life. After Vatican II it seemed to morph into a bunch of guitar strumming hippies.

Well maybe that’s a bit overstating the case, but they tossed out all the ‘strict’ part of OCSO.

Strict means to follow the Rule strictly, not to live a “strict” life in the common sense of the word. In the strict interpretation of the Rule, monks are to live what Benedict would have called a balanced life. 8 hours of prayer, 8 hours of work, 8 hours of rest.

I have had zero contact with any Trappists so I cannot speculate on the guitar strumming hippies statement.