J
jwinch2
Guest
Very interesting. Thank you.
- Status
T
Tybourne
Guest
Should ‘what would St Benedict do’ be the over-riding priority? This is where I have some difficulty with the charisms of religious orders. It could be just my protestant roots showing. To my understanding, each of the charisms is a specific way of living out the Gospel. Each one shows a different facet of Christ e.g. the ‘hidden’ life of Nazareth (Little Brothers of Jesus), Christ in the desert (monastic), Christ’s preaching (mendicants).
Therefore, the charism must always serve the vocation as a baptised member of Christ’s body. To argue otherwise is to risk idolotary. For example, my understanding is that the Rule evolved and was developed by St Benedict from a text which was originally a post-baptismal mystagogical catechesis. Mystagogy is the form of catechesis most desperately needed in the Church today, especially for lay, baptised Catholics. The religious orders have an immense wealth of spirituality to share. Each religious order could be seen as a form of mystagogy.
With respect brother, I disagree with you here. St Benedict uses a great deal of family language: ‘son’, ‘father’, even the older monks are called ‘nonnus’, which I think means ‘grandpa’. As to practices, he says that every time an older monk passes a younger one he should bless him. As we know, this would involve putting his hands on his head, like a dad who pats the head of his little boy when he goes past while playing. For Benedict, I think the washing of feet is to take place weekly, rather than annually. This is like family ‘bath-time’.
More importantly, if you read or listen to Scott Hahn’s First Comes Love, Finding Your Family in the Church, the idea is that Jesus comes to make the ancient idea of the trustee family universal. As Blessed Pope John Paul II says, the history of the world passes by way of the family. This is as true for religious orders as for the Church as a whole. Many founders of religious orders and religious saints have come from remarkable families. I am thinking, for example, of St Therese of Liseux. Today, the family is in grave crisis. Perhaps more so here in the UK than in the US. However, I note that about 43% of marriages in the US end in divorce and I understand that the figure is not much different between Catholics and non-Catholics. This is a concern for the whole Church, including religious. If we do not have a strong vocation to family life being lived out, where will religious vocations come from? Families desperately need strong mystagogic catechesis and religious orders are well placed to offer it, in my opinion, at least those with a pastoral or missionary charism, like the English Benedictines.
At the same time, the secular world has the Holy Spirit at work in it in a way which religious need to learn from. The absolute authority of the abbot which you note is potentially open to abuse. For example, in the Benedictine community I wrote about in my earlier post, the abbot himself was an abuser. No wonder then, that abuse of children was not exposed and rooted out. In families in the past (and still to an extent), abuse may have been hidden to protect the reputation and standing of the family. However, now there is more of a culture of speaking out and standing up for family members who have been abused: the children have to come first. This is a form of ‘wisdom’ from the secular world that relgious orders could do well to learn from, in my opinion.
They sound like Cistercians. Very admirable but different from the OSB Benedictines I am speaking of.
Well, it’s true that monk comes from ‘monachus’ meaning ‘alone’. In some ways, the cenobitic life is living alone with others. At the same time, I would question whether any human being doesn’t need human intimacy. Perhaps intimacy with the ‘family’ of the Blessed Trinity and the communion of saints is the ideal. Nevertheless, St Benedict says that it’s very important to be in community. The family is the basis of all community. No rule or charism should be placed above the Gospel, or interpreted in a way that is contrary to it:
Many thanks for your inspiring and good posts on this thread.
J
JReducation
Guest
The second order is monastic and the third order is penitent. The reason for the change between the first and the other two is because the first order that Francis founded were celibate men who became itinerants. The nuns were not itinerant and the seculars could not be itinerant as many were married or were secular clergy committed to parishes and bishops.
This dealt a blow to their paradigm of the city on the hill, which is what you’re describing. What I was referring to was the introduction of clericalism into the order. That’s what being corrected today.
Benedictines and Franciscans are rather interesting animals. The best way that I can describe is as having a love affair with their spiritual fathers. Both orders tend to look at the writings and commands of the founder as the final word. The Abbot (Benedictine) and the Guardian (Franciscan) is the voice of Christ, which can only be disobeyed when he commands sin. You always look to them, because they are the spiritual masters. They mastered what Christ revealed to them. You look them to understand how to go and where not to go.
The charism is really the vision and mission given by Christ to the founder. By following this the baptized man or woman who enters the community finds his place in the plan of salvation. You don’t deviate from the vision and mission, because to do so, you risk ending up somewhere other than where Christ is calling you to go. In the end, if you live according to the vision and mission (charism) given to the founder, no matter which religious family you belong to, you will attain eternal life. That’s your hope.
This is true. For this reason the Church always suggests to the laity to look to the religious to understand how to live Christian Spirituality, to serve in the apostolate and to live in the Church.
All of the religious communities use the language of family, not just St. Benedict’s. Where I’m going with this is that there are different contexts. The biological family lives in a secular context, while the religious family does not. These relationships are going to be different. A simple example, Canon Law tells us that the father (parent) ceases to have authority over his child when his child reaches adulthood. However, the parent continues to have an influence and a role in the life of that adult child. He remains the father, but his role and relationship with the offspring changes as the child grows into adulthood.
In the case of an Abbot, his role and relationship does not change. He remains the unchallenged father, as others have explained very well in their posts. Benedictines, Cistercians, Trappists, Camaldolese would not think of challenging an abbot anymore than they would think about going to the moon. His is the voice of Christ. He may be a foolish man or a genius, a saint or a sinner, but when he commands, he is obeyed as one would obey Christ himself. There is the obvious. Christ would not command one to sin. If the abbot commands sin, it’s not Christ speaking. The monks are smart enough to know this. But the point is that the family relationship is different in this context. In this context you never stop being subordinate and submissive to the father of the house. The same is true about the relationship between the monk and his brothers. He never ceases to be subordinate to them. This is not the case in a secular family, nor should it be. Both are real families, but in very different contexts.
J
JReducation
Guest
What you’re going to be seeing, with the directions that the Holy Father is giving to religious is that these Benedictine monks are going to be withdrawing more into their abbeys and be taking on less pastoral duties outside of the abbey. Monks were never intended to be missionaries in that sense. Many are missionaries. That’s how they got to England, America and Africa. But they were not missionaries as were the Jesuits, Franciscans or Dominicans. What they brought was the contemplative life.
In simple words, there have been horrible superiors, but not enough to warrant rewriting the rules. Most superiors have been very admirable men.
When Benedict says that they are to live in community, he is talking about two things. First, they are not hermits. Second, they are to be concerned with the common good. But if you look at the profession of vows, the journey to which a monk commits himself is a solitary journey where only he and Christ walk.
In my experiences with converts from Protestantism, I have fond that they are shocked by such ideas as absolute obedience to a superior, the rule cannot be changed except by a pope, the Gospel must be followed as prescribed by the rule, the founder must be obeyed and loved, the secular world is to be kept at a distance or the Marian devotion in religious life. I think it’s the language. After they get the language down, it doesn’t sound so weird.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
And it has been abused. We know this form history. Some abbots and other superiors were horrible men. But the rules of the founders can only be changed by the Holy Father himself. There are five rules in the Church that the Holy Fathers have sealed with Papal Bulls. No pope wants to touch them: Benedict, Albert, Augustine, Francis, and Basil. Each one describes the authority of the superior differently. Francis takes his definition from Benedict. Even if you believe that the superior is wrong, he is to be obeyed in all things but sin. In another admonition he says that you are not to be argumentative with the superior or with the bishop.
In simple words, there have been horrible superiors, but not enough to warrant rewriting the rules. Most superiors have been very admirable men.
They are OSB. They were explaining the general direction in which the Benedictine family of men is moving.
If you read what other posters have said and that beautiful video about the Cistercians, the intimacy of the family is precisely what the monk surrenders as his gift to Christ. He embraces solitude.
When Benedict says that they are to live in community, he is talking about two things. First, they are not hermits. Second, they are to be concerned with the common good. But if you look at the profession of vows, the journey to which a monk commits himself is a solitary journey where only he and Christ walk.
Every one of the five rules in the Catholic Church have been approved because they lead to the Gospel, not above the Gospel. One has to be very careful, especially if one is coming from a Protestant background, because the language of the orders can be very confusing. If one observes the orders very carefully and how they live out the rule, one quickly notices that everything about their live is from the Gospel and leads back to the Gospel. The rule is really a methodology for living the Gospel.
In my experiences with converts from Protestantism, I have fond that they are shocked by such ideas as absolute obedience to a superior, the rule cannot be changed except by a pope, the Gospel must be followed as prescribed by the rule, the founder must be obeyed and loved, the secular world is to be kept at a distance or the Marian devotion in religious life. I think it’s the language. After they get the language down, it doesn’t sound so weird.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Tybourne
Guest
Thanks again for your informative and charitable response, brother.
Just as Catholics need to learn from protestants, so religious need to learn from lay people and families. If the family language of religious is to mean anything, it needs to be cross-referenced with what is revealed through the Holy Spirit by natural family life. A harmony needs to exist between the natural and supernatural family. Religious life is a brave, potentially transformative, but also potentially spiritually devastating experiment in human living within the grace of Christ.
It’s a little different in the case of the English Benedictines as compared to some other congregations. After the destruction of the monasteries under Henry VIII, they were actually founded (or re-founded) as missionary communities. They have always been so since their inception. You could argue that they have three founders, St Benedict, St Augustine of Canterbury and Dom Sigebert Buckley, who established them as a missionary congregation and who was the living link between pre- and post-dissolution monastic life among the English. From the time of their first beginnings, many of them were martyred. The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church (Tertullian). Their missionary charism is indelibly written in letters of this blood. The question remains, how would monastic mission look in 2011? If not with families, then how?
I would advocate not re-writing the rules, but reinterpreting them in light of the Gospel. Maciel drew upon the venerable tradition of absolute obedience to the superior to weave his web of deceit and abuse within the Legionnairies of Christ. In my opinion, the voice of those who were abused calls to heaven for vengeance, in the sense of decisive action. It is not only the Legion that needs to be reformed and refounded but perhaps all religious orders. Can we point to a single order where abuse was routinely dealt with in an open and transparent manner, where it occurred? If so, perhaps other orders can learn from the charism of that order, just as you have shown cogently how the orders have learned from each other in different ways.
I agree and, at the same time, I think the critique of protestantism is also an action of the Holy Spirit, following the criterion of Gamaliel in Acts 5:38-39: “if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (RSV). Protestantism has existed now for 500 or so years and shows no signs of disapparing yet. I am happy to be in full communion with the successor of St Peter and the other Apostles, but feel that we still need to learn from the uncovenanted graces at work among our separated brethren in the protestant communions. You could argue that this is what the Holy Father is doing in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, which incorporates Anglican spirituality within the ‘one true fold of the Redeemer’. In some ways, the patron of the ordinariate, Blessed John Henry Newman, brought his critique of the Church in with him. His vision led him to denounce a ‘lust for servility’ which he observed in his fellow Catholics, which was arguably the bitter fruit of an exaggerated cult of obedience. Perhaps this is why he chose the Oratory as his community, or why God chose it for him. I understand that in the Oratory, the emphasis is on mutual obedience rather than to a superior. Have any Oratorians concealed cases of abuse? I’m not aware of them having done so.
Just as Catholics need to learn from protestants, so religious need to learn from lay people and families. If the family language of religious is to mean anything, it needs to be cross-referenced with what is revealed through the Holy Spirit by natural family life. A harmony needs to exist between the natural and supernatural family. Religious life is a brave, potentially transformative, but also potentially spiritually devastating experiment in human living within the grace of Christ.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The silence was profound. It’s something you don’t notice, at least I didn’t, until I left. As I wrote in my blog…
***The area around the Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyer’s Georgia, home to 32 Monks of the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance, is mostly rural and quite bucolic. After twenty minutes of driving toward Atlanta however, the cacophony of the strip malls and billboards of suburbia got to me.
First a guy on a sport bike whizzed past me at about twice my speed. Then the rumble of some way too big pickup truck drew my attention. I had tried to change lanes to make a turn but the driver behind me sped up to block me, only to wind up next to me at the red light a hundred yards down the road. The sheer number of signs which vied for my attention was amazing; McDonald’s, QT, Autozone, buy one get one free, sale, sale, SALE! The noise from car radios, from traffic, and even from my own car just wouldn’t stop. It all seemed to be attacking me, and all without purpose, and it made me feel dirty.***
In his book No Man is an Island, Thomas Mertron wrote of the neurosis of city life.
Everything in modern city life is calculated to keep man from entering into himself and thinking about spiritual things. Even with the best of intentions a spiritual man finds himself exhausted and deadened and debased by the constant noise of machines and loudspeakers, the dead air and the glaring lights of offices and shops, the everlasting suggestions of advertising and propaganda. The whole mechanism of modern life is geared for a flight from God and from the spirit into the wilderness of neurosis. Even our monasteries are not free from the smell and clatter of our world.(No Man is an Island, Thomas Merton)
Merton was speaking about New York City. He went to Columbia University. He lived in Queens and took the LIRR back and forth from Douglaston to Manhattan. I know you can relate about city life. It is sometimes true of my own house, which is supposed to be a home, a place of rest, safety, serenity, and a place of family love. Two TV’s running, washing machine, phone ringing… It’s one of the reasons the monastery attracts me. They are monks in community, there is hustle and bustle as they run to prayer, come and go to the retreat house to cook for the guests, etc., but they live as “Spiritual hermits” inside themeselves.
That’s the most important thing I took away from reading “The Way to Perfection”, that God is inside of us and that we only need to turn inward to find God. We can do that on the train, in the Mall, and while mowing the lawn. We can live as spiritual hermits because God is inside of us. But one thing I learned is that God doesn’t like to compete. At a certain point we need quiet and stillness so that we can listen.
So he said to Samuel, “Go to sleep, and if you are called, reply, ‘Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.’” When Samuel went to sleep in his place, the LORD came and stood there, calling out as before: Samuel, Samuel! Samuel answered, “Speak, for your servant is listening.” (1 Samuel 3:9-10)
Late at night, when the rest of the world is sleeping is when I like to pray. Like Samuel, late at night is when God speaks to me. It’s not so much the silence, but what the silence allows you to hear. It allows you to hear God’s voice clearly.
The sound of the monks chanting, “I cry to you, O Lord…” at 4:00 AM in the stillness and chill of the big Church was for me earth shattering.
-Tim-
J
jwinch2
Guest
This part in particular sounds a bit like St. Catherine of Sienna’s admonition to “Build a cell inside your mind, from which you can never flee.” I often find it interesting how many of the great saints, particularly the mystics, start differently but end up in similar places. St. Catherine’s statement has been interpreted by many to mean that a place within oneself which is silent and sacred and of retreat from the rest of the world; and in turn becomes a place where we can always find God.
Peace,
O
OraLabora
Guest
This sounds a bit like the Protestant argument that unmarried priests couldn’t possibly counsel married couples. Yet when my marriage hit a rough patch, it was a celibate Benedictine monk that gave the sagest advice and saved it. The shrinks and counsellors all advised me to walk. Fortunately, we didn’t and we turned the corner.
Benedictine monks don’t live in this world as it were but they are far from ignorant about the world in general and family life in particular. If anything it is we in the secular world who need to learn community living through tolerance of the foibles of others and throug self-effacement. We all need to learn “it isn’t all about me”.
To a some extent it is a two-way dialogue and in particular, Oblates are the monks eyes in the world, and we oblates are the vehicle to bring monastic values in the world.
So I am afraid to say I don’t see a need for profound reform in the direction you are suggesting. Monastics who have strayed too far from their values and traditions perhaps do need to rediscover the beauty and freedom of the enclosure. Our abbot is very conscious of this. But that involves a return to core values, not inventing some new uncharted waters in the manner you suggest.
Those abbeys close to their core values seem to do better at vocations. Some that have strayed too far- I’m thinking like John Main’s experiments in Oriental meditation at the community he founded in Montréal and which failed- run into difficulties. And I am positive this isn’t only a Benedictine phenomenon.
Perhaps we’ll some day recognize that Vatican II’s greatest treasure is the restoration of the orders and congregations to their original charisms. And when that happens perhaps we’ll recognize that Vatican II rather than being “modernist” is in fact a radical experiment in traditionalism, using “radical” in it’s Latin sense meaning “root”.
T
TrueLight
Guest
That’s what happens as a result of being in union with God.
There is only one truth.
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Greetings in Christ. I’m a Oblate of St. Benedict, and would just like to add that one focus we delight in is that of reading, praying and listening* “with the heart.” * I imagine people from all orders share in this, so I just mention it as something that I find fascinating.
To me, this means to take a moment, whether conversing with someone, reading or praying, to open one’s self to Christ’s compassion in that “teachable moment” or situation. I have a lot to learn, but even when I fail, I know the reason: I have rushed forward in my own judgement and forgotten to feel Christ’s Divine Mercy and compassion for the other person. I hope to improve, with God’s help.
I’m sure each person brings something of him or herself into any order, so that what may be lacking in the person will come to light while learning a specific rule or teaching. I’m sure that each order has its own way of bringing each person closer to the heart of Christ
.
The scripture that always comes to my mind is that “He who has sinned much, loves much.” If we believe we are in no need of growing spiritually, that we are mostly* just*, then we may not have the same gratitude to God for His mercy. For that reason, I feel that were I a lay Carmelite, for example, the special devotion to Our Blessed Virgin would still lead to me feel the awe and wonder of God’s Divine Mercy and compassion. This must be why St. Paul said that when we are weak, God is greater still and can work with each of us just as we are!
Blessings to all,
Kathryn Ann
To me, this means to take a moment, whether conversing with someone, reading or praying, to open one’s self to Christ’s compassion in that “teachable moment” or situation. I have a lot to learn, but even when I fail, I know the reason: I have rushed forward in my own judgement and forgotten to feel Christ’s Divine Mercy and compassion for the other person. I hope to improve, with God’s help.
I’m sure each person brings something of him or herself into any order, so that what may be lacking in the person will come to light while learning a specific rule or teaching. I’m sure that each order has its own way of bringing each person closer to the heart of Christ
.
The scripture that always comes to my mind is that “He who has sinned much, loves much.” If we believe we are in no need of growing spiritually, that we are mostly* just*, then we may not have the same gratitude to God for His mercy. For that reason, I feel that were I a lay Carmelite, for example, the special devotion to Our Blessed Virgin would still lead to me feel the awe and wonder of God’s Divine Mercy and compassion. This must be why St. Paul said that when we are weak, God is greater still and can work with each of us just as we are!
Blessings to all,
Kathryn Ann
J
jwinch2
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
Let me see if I can help here.
- I think that you’re building an entire case for change in the rules of religious orders based on the sex abuse scandal. That cannot happen. The rules are divinely inspired. You cannot change divine inspiration and accomodate it to human situations. You address human situations according to divine inspriation.
- Do you know the difference between a Rule and a rule, between a solemn vow and a simple vow, between an order and a congregation? Depending on which of these you fall under is going to define how much wiggle room you have for interpretation. If you belong to an order that professes solemn vows and has a Rule of Life, you cannot change that rule and you cannot interpret that rule in any other way than the way that the founder allows. These founders themselves imposed moral and canonical penalties for anyone who attempts to do so. For example, to the Rule of the Friars Minor, St. Francis added a curse to anyone that tries to interpret the rule differently from his vision and intention. The Church upholds this a legally binding. Therefore, any constitution has to be approved by the Holy See to ensure that it does not violate the Rule or the vision of the founder.
In the case of the Legion, what happened, should not have happened. No founder and no Church law has ever advocated that the superior can command sin. The superior can only command what is good or at best what is neutral. Never what is evil. If he does, the subject is not disobeying by refusing to comply.
If you belong to a congregation, your community makes simple vows instead of solemn vows, or your community does not have a rule of life, then you have a completely different infrastructure, because you’re part of a different tradition. The term “religious life” is an umbrella term that covers all consecrated religious. But not all consecrated men or women are created equal. There is a hierarchy of consecration and there are horizontal differences as well. When one looks at the place of religious life in the tradition of the Church, one has to examine the hierarchy of consecration and the canonical status of communities. The one is hierarchical and the other is horizontal.
The higher that you go in that hierarchy of consecration, the less wiggle room you have. The Benedictine congregation in your link comes is doing what monks were asked to do for many years and which the Church is now trying to reduce. This is not going to happen overnight. These parishes have to be covered by someone. If they have to borrow the monks and the abbot agree to lend the monks, that will work. However, it is very clear in their description that they are not committed to running parishes. This was something that they agreed to do to help the Church, because of the disaster that preceded with Henry VIII and that whole Anglican crew. Many monks, in many parts of the world did this.
That same congregation is here in the USA. They taught me at the university. There, they never go out to parishes. They teach and go back to the abbey. There is no need for them to go into parishes, so the abbot does not allow it.
As to how much the lay and secular can influence the orders, the Council of Trent ruled on this and decreed that these orders are exempt. They exist by divine inspiration and only the pope can interfere or change anything or he can delegate and someone else makes the changes that he approves. That’s why I asked you if you know the difference between orders and congregation and between the kinds of religious vows, solemn and simple. If you are in an order with solemn vows, you are exempt for all influence from the bishops and the laity by decree of Trent. You are bound to recover the vision of the founder, by decree of Vatican II and then again by decree of Bl. John Paul.
The Vatican is taking this very seriously. They were investigation women religious to ensure that they are go back. The results are not in yet. It will be interesting to see what the Vatican says.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
Brother, why is it that the Vatican is investigating only the women religious? I am aware of some women religious (Sr. Donna Quinn O.P.) have heterodox views, but are other reasons other then the obvious?
J
jwinch2
Guest
Ouch, I hadn’t seen that before. I did a search and definitely did not like what I saw… Hopefully she will come back into the Church and live within her vows again at some point.
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
With the exception of the Carthusian’s
, I am positive every order has a few “bad apples”, they’re (as well as all of the religious) always in my families prayers.
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Happy to share. :harp:And Peace to you as well, Jason.
J
jwinch2
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
The male communities have not has as many problems as the female communities of sisters. They’re investigating sisters. They are not investigating nuns or male religious.
The male religious have had their problem children, trust me. But to the orders and congregations there is nothing new in this. We’ve had problem children since the communities were born. Benedict had problem children. Francis had problem children, so did Dominic and yes, even Bruno. Sorry, the Carthusians are not an exception to the rule. They have some real scary stories in their history. But these are stories about individuals, not the entire community.
This is the situation. The male communities have been trying to do what we were told to do. We were told to go back to the original charism of our founders. We were told that those of us who had a rule of life, which applies to very few religious communities as there are only five rules, but those who have a rule of life, were to take their constitutions and take out anything that the founder would object to. The way to know this was to look at three things: the rule given to us by the founder, any advice and admonitions that the founders gave beyond the rule, the way that the founders lived the Gospel.
Those communities that do not have a rule of life, such as the Jesuits, Salesians, Redemptorists, etc were to look at the lives of their founders, their writings, the lives of their early brothers and try to tease out of there the vision that the founder had and the mission that the founder gave to the community. They were to execute that vision and mission in today’s world.
They have a lot more flexibility than communities with rules. If your community has a rule and the rule says that you must wear green hair, then you wear green hair, unless the pope says that you’re dispensed from that statute. But he’s only dispensing you from the green hair, you still have to wear the pink slippers.
Christ speaks through the founder and the pope.What happened with the sisters was that many, NOT ALL, and mostly Americans, misinterpreted, “adapt to today’s world.” This phrase meant that the religious were to take what the founder said and figure out how to execute it in today’s world, not that the community had to look at today’s world and figure out how to adapt it to the founder or the Gospel. The Gospel is not adaptable. It is what it is.
For example: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton never gave her sisters a habit for a simple reason. Her sisters are not nuns. They are consecrated women, but they are not regular sisters or nuns. They make simple vows that they renew yearly. They do not go through novitiate or juniorate. They are not bound to pray the Divine Office, never were. Nor do they live in convents, never did. If you go to Emmitsbug, they lived in the “white house”. There is no enclosure.
During her life, the sisters wore the widow’s cap and cape out of affection for Mother Seton, as they called her. Even her name was not that of a nun. She was always Mrs.Seton or Mother Seton. She was never Mother Mary Elizabeth. In fact, she signed her letters, Betty Seton. For them to put aside the wodow’s cap and cape was very legitimate, as this was never the intent of Elizabeth. In fact, when Elizabeth went out in public, no one knew that she was a consecrated woman. There was nothing to set her apart. The people in Emmitsburg called her Mrs Seton or Mother Seton. She answered to both.
Other communities did not do what the Sisters of Charity did. They went the other way. They looked at other women involved in similar work as they were and adapted to that model. This was playing with fire; but unfortunately, they did not realize it until it was too late. What they did was bring the secular into the convent. Teaching sisters became teachers. Sisters in social outreach, became social workers and civic leaders and so forth.
Unlike the male religious, many women religious embraced the secular world as a community. Whereas among the male religious, these are individuals, not entire communities.
Some communities of sisters went after culture. They found that the faster they ran after contemporary culture, the faster contemporary man ran away from them. For example, the American sisters suddenly became very American. They fell into this whole silliness that everything has to fit the needs of the laity and that everyone has to have a voice or that everything has to be discussed ad nauseam and no one should have authority over anyone, because absolute authority corrupts. Well guess what, chaos corrupts even faster.
This is not the same story for every community of sisters. A good example of this are the Dominican Sisters of St.Cecilia.
What happened with many communities of sisters was that they went in the wrong direction as a collective, not as individuals. When you get that many people heading in the wrong direction, it’s like a Tsunami. It’s hard to stop it. The Vatican opted to wait it out until the Tsunami was over and then assess the damage.
The Tsunami seems to be over. Much of the silliness is dying out. We have a wonderful sisters from the JP2 Generation, in and out of habits, who are very faithful women and I don’t doubt that there are saints in the making among them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
Thank you Brother, this all makes sense with what I have observed.The male communities have not has as many problems as the female communities of sisters. They’re investigating sisters. They are not investigating nuns or male religious.
The male religious have had their problem children, trust me. But to the orders and congregations there is nothing new in this. We’ve had problem children since the communities were born. Benedict had problem children. Francis had problem children, so did Dominic and yes, even Bruno. Sorry, the Carthusians are not an exception to the rule. They have some real scary stories in their history. But these are stories about individuals, not the entire community.
This is the situation. The male communities have been trying to do what we were told to do. We were told to go back to the original charism of our founders. We were told that those of us who had a rule of life, which applies to very few religious communities as there are only five rules, but those who have a rule of life, were to take their constitutions and take out anything that the founder would object to. The way to know this was to look at three things: the rule given to us by the founder, any advice and admonitions that the founders gave beyond the rule, the way that the founders lived the Gospel.
Those communities that do not have a rule of life, such as the Jesuits, Salesians, Redemptorists, etc were to look at the lives of their founders, their writings, the lives of their early brothers and try to tease out of there the vision that the founder had and the mission that the founder gave to the community. They were to execute that vision and mission in today’s world.
They have a lot more flexibility than communities with rules. If your community has a rule and the rule says that you must wear green hair, then you wear green hair, unless the pope says that you’re dispensed from that statute. But he’s only dispensing you from the green hair, you still have to wear the pink slippers.
What happened with the sisters was that many, NOT ALL, and mostly Americans, misinterpreted, “adapt to today’s world.” This phrase meant that the religious were to take what the founder said and figure out how to execute it in today’s world, not that the community had to look at today’s world and figure out how to adapt it to the founder or the Gospel. The Gospel is not adaptable. It is what it is.
For example: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton never gave her sisters a habit for a simple reason. Her sisters are not nuns. They are consecrated women, but they are not regular sisters or nuns. They make simple vows that they renew yearly. They do not go through novitiate or juniorate. They are not bound to pray the Divine Office, never were. Nor do they live in convents, never did. If you go to Emmitsbug, they lived in the “white house”. There is no enclosure.
During her life, the sisters wore the widow’s cap and cape out of affection for Mother Seton, as they called her. Even her name was not that of a nun. She was always Mrs.Seton or Mother Seton. She was never Mother Mary Elizabeth. In fact, she signed her letters, Betty Seton. For them to put aside the wodow’s cap and cape was very legitimate, as this was never the intent of Elizabeth. In fact, when Elizabeth went out in public, no one knew that she was a consecrated woman. There was nothing to set her apart. The people in Emmitsburg called her Mrs Seton or Mother Seton. She answered to both.
Other communities did not do what the Sisters of Charity did. They went the other way. They looked at other women involved in similar work as they were and adapted to that model. This was playing with fire; but unfortunately, they did not realize it until it was too late. What they did was bring the secular into the convent. Teaching sisters became teachers. Sisters in social outreach, became social workers and civic leaders and so forth.
Unlike the male religious, many women religious embraced the secular world as a community. Whereas among the male religious, these are individuals, not entire communities.
Some communities of sisters went after culture. They found that the faster they ran after contemporary culture, the faster contemporary man ran away from them. For example, the American sisters suddenly became very American. They fell into this whole silliness that everything has to fit the needs of the laity and that everyone has to have a voice or that everything has to be discussed ad nauseam and no one should have authority over anyone, because absolute authority corrupts. Well guess what, chaos corrupts even faster.
This is not the same story for every community of sisters. A good example of this are the Dominican Sisters of St.Cecilia.
What happened with many communities of sisters was that they went in the wrong direction as a collective, not as individuals. When you get that many people heading in the wrong direction, it’s like a Tsunami. It’s hard to stop it. The Vatican opted to wait it out until the Tsunami was over and then assess the damage.
The Tsunami seems to be over. Much of the silliness is dying out. We have a wonderful sisters from the JP2 Generation, in and out of habits, who are very faithful women and I don’t doubt that there are saints in the making among them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
God be with you.
T
Tybourne
Guest
- Status