Spirituality of religious orders in Catholic tradition

[iloveangels]

Let’s stop and think about the good old days before Vatican II, between 1800 and 1950. For 150 years, every Francis of Assisi that ever came up was lost in some laundry room or some kitchen, because he was not a priest.

When people say, “You folks need to get back to what you were before Vatican II,” our reaction is, “You go back to that and see how you like it. The rest of us are going further back to the founders when we were all one family with one vocation and one common way of life, while we each had different gifts: priests, lawyers, teachers, nurses, preachers, farmers, mechanics, tailors, cooks, gardeners, theologians, spiritual directors, administrators, missionaries and much more.” We’re not going back to anything between 1800 and 1950, sorry. As was said about he Holocaust, “Never again.”

Thanks to Bl. John Paul who followed up Perfectae Caritatis with Vitae Consecrata reaffirming the Church’s commitment to religious never to exploit us again and never to suppress us in favor of priests and laity. He is very strong in his words to bishops to protect the religious form those who would force them back into those molds, unless they go by choice.

There are religious who do this by choice and that’s their right and we are grateful for them. The Carthusians have a caste system. They always had it. Everyone who enters a charter house knows what to expect. They know that there are two types of Carthusians.

The Dominicans don’t have a caste system, but they too have two kinds of friars. Everyone knows that the vocation of the Dominican priest and the Dominican coadjutor brother are not the same. They are both in the service of preaching. The priest is the preacher and the coadjutor brother makes sure that everything necessary for preaching is taken care of. Whereas in the Franciscan tradition, whoever has the gift of preaching, preaches, priest or not. Whoever is a good cook, cooks, priest or not. That’s the way it was before 1800. It was the constitution of the 1856 that changed all of that. In 1970, we had to rewrite the constitution to recover that sense of equality and fraternity again. I believe that’s why so many religious orders of men look so strange to anyone who knows nothing about our life before 1800 or our lives behind the walls between 1800 and 1950.

There is always a positive side. Those 150 years produced great brother saints. You had to be a saint to live and work in that setting. It required a great deal of trust and humility. What we religious always chuckle about is that those who want us to go back to the “good old days” are the same people who are fighting the Vatican for power, control of their liturgy and their parishes, and for “a return to tradition.”

When we fight for a return to tradition, it’s not good. When they fight for a return to tradition, it’s OK. That’s not kosher.

As I say, people need to really understand what the traditions of these orders really are. They are not what they appeared to be in 1950. You want to know their traditions, go back to their founders. Read the writings of the founders, their statutes, their rules, and their constitutions. Read their early history. Watch how it developed and keep a sharp eye out for that point when they made a sudden 90 degree turn. What happens if a 747 makes a sharp 90 degree turn?

That’s what happened to many religious orders. For some there will never be a recovery. They will die a slow and painful death. Others, like Franciscans, Carmelites, Cistercians, and Benedictines are recovering. Thank God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Secular Franciscans had something very similar happen to them. The seculars or lay Franciscans were founded to be autonomous, with their own rule. But later they were placed under the supervision of the friars and effectively lost their autonomy. The result of this is that eventually the seculars became no more than a sort of sodality or pious group for laypeople. Formation was very sketchy and the expected level of commitment was very much reduced. In some places, in the US, people in parishes just were given a short “talk” and then allowed to “sign up.” Period. [Now that no longer goes on.]

The directives of Vatican II resulted in our getting an autonomous Rule again in 1978–a revised version of our Rule–for the first time in centuries. We are again autonomous and our Minister General is a layperson–a Secular Franciscan–again. The friars serve as spiritual assistants for us, but we & they have been made to understand that they are not our “bosses” or our religious superiors in the SFO.

We are still recovering from the “pious group” mentality which is very deep-seated in Europe and the US. It’s going to take years to get back to what we should be. However, in Asia and Africa where this isn’t a problem, the order is growing very quickly.

 

[JReducation]

I’m very happy you brought this up because this is exactly what patients do these days. We research on the internet, we look at different drugs and treatments and say, “What about this Doc? Have you heard of this?”

Doctors have had to adjust and view patients differently. Patients are more educated now. They can read about side effects right on the internet. They don’t have to sneak a peak at their doctor’s drug book.

A lot of times the patient is wrong or has an incomplete picture. But every now and then you hear of a patient who brings up a treatment the doctor has never heard of and that treatment ends up saving the patient’s life!

In the same way, the laity have access to a lot of knowledge. I do not understand why a Religious would get upset if someone brings up a topic to them. Maybe they respect them as an expert and would like to know their opinion?

To get upset to me is pride.

The difference here is one of roles. Just as you don’t attempt to displace the priest at mass or in confession, because that’s his role, so too the role of the monk and the friar is to be the master on the spiritual life.

How you bring it up is very important. If you bring it up as a question, most will simply answer your question, as you see me do here all the time. If you ask a question to which we don’t know the answer, you’ll also get what you see me do here, “Interesting question” or “Very good question” or “I didn’t know that.”

If you come at him with “I know something that you need to learn,” you’re going to get put in your place faster than you can say “Amen.”

Can you see the difference? It’s not the subject, it’s the approach. As much as I love tradition and traditions, I always have to correct traditionalists on this point. Before I came to this town, I lived in NYC where I had to correct the liberals for the same thing. One must remember that the Church is vertical or hierarchical. We’re not a community of equals. It is also a community of nations. We’re not all the same. It is a body. Each part has a function. In a certain sense, if we follow tradition, we have to accept that the Church can also be very rigid.

While it is good for the individual to be well informed. It is not good for the individual to cross boundaries. I can ask my doctor about this treatment or that medication. I cannot tell my doctor that he has to use it or that he knows less, because he does not know about it. That’s offensive. In truth, he may not know about it, throiugh no fault of his own or because he’s never needed it. I know form personal experience. I was a medical doctor before I entered religious life. There are many treatments and medications out there that I never needed to use, so I never bothered looking for them. The same happens in the spiritual life, which is the domain of the monk and friar.

Does this help a little?

Please say, No, if I’m not clear. :yup:

Fraternally,

Br. JR,FFV

 

[JReducation]

Secular Franciscans had something very similar happen to them. The seculars or lay Franciscans were founded to be autonomous, with their own rule. But later they were placed under the supervision of the friars and effectively lost their autonomy. The result of this is that eventually the seculars became no more than a sort of sodality or pious group for laypeople. Formation was very sketchy and the expected level of commitment was very much reduced. In some places, in the US, people in parishes just were given a short “talk” and then allowed to “sign up.” Period. [Now that no longer goes on.]

The directives of Vatican II resulted in our getting an autonomous Rule again in 1978–a revised version of our Rule–for the first time in centuries. We are again autonomous and our Minister General is a layperson–a Secular Franciscan–again. The friars serve as spiritual assistants for us, but we & they have been made to understand that they are not our “bosses” or our religious superiors in the SFO.

We are still recovering from the “pious group” mentality which is very deep-seated in Europe and the US. It’s going to take years to get back to what we should be. However, in Asia and Africa where this isn’t a problem, the order is growing very quickly.

I help with formation of a local OFS fraternity and they still drive me crazy. I expect them to pick up and read. They expect me to come and spoon feed them every month. That’s a very old model that I refuse to follow. It was not St. Francis’ vision.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Armyvet007]

I’m very happy you brought this up because this is exactly what patients do these days. We research on the internet, we look at different drugs and treatments and say, “What about this Doc? Have you heard of this?”

Doctors have had to adjust and view patients differently. Patients are more educated now. They can read about side effects right on the internet. They don’t have to sneak a peak at their doctor’s drug book.

A lot of times the patient is wrong or has an incomplete picture. But every now and then you hear of a patient who brings up a treatment the doctor has never heard of and that treatment ends up saving the patient’s life!

In the same way, the laity have access to a lot of knowledge. I do not understand why a Religious would get upset if someone brings up a topic to them. Maybe they respect them as an expert and would like to know their opinion?

To get upset to me is pride.

I had a similar reaction [getting upset, my response was more “colorful” then the brother’s] once when a lower enlisted tried to have a conversation with me about something way above his paygrade. I wasn’t upset because I outranked him [pride], I was upset because he was more interested in stuff above his level without bothering to learn and master his level first [and skipping several levels in between to boot]; and because he violated cultural/social norms within the military sub-culture. I would guess that the brother [who I assume is a good brother if the ones I’ve interacted with are any indication of the population as a whole] reacted that way for a similar reason for my reaction.

 

[TrueLight]

The difference here is one of roles. Just as you don’t attempt to displace the priest at mass or in confession, because that’s his role, so too the role of the monk and the friar is to be the master on the spiritual life.

How you bring it up is very important. If you bring it up as a question, most will simply answer your question, as you see me do here all the time. If you ask a question to which we don’t know the answer, you’ll also get what you see me do here, “Interesting question” or “Very good question” or “I didn’t know that.”

If you come at him with “I know something that you need to learn,” you’re going to get put in your place faster than you can say “Amen.”

Can you see the difference? It’s not the subject, it’s the approach. As much as I love tradition and traditions, I always have to correct traditionalists on this point. Before I came to this town, I lived in NYC where I had to correct the liberals for the same thing. One must remember that the Church is vertical or hierarchical. We’re not a community of equals. It is also a community of nations. We’re not all the same. It is a body. Each part has a function. In a certain sense, if we follow tradition, we have to accept that the Church can also be very rigid.

While it is good for the individual to be well informed. It is not good for the individual to cross boundaries. I can ask my doctor about this treatment or that medication. I cannot tell my doctor that he has to use it or that he knows less, because he does not know about it. That’s offensive. In truth, he may not know about it, throiugh no fault of his own or because he’s never needed it. I know form personal experience. I was a medical doctor before I entered religious life. There are many treatments and medications out there that I never needed to use, so I never bothered looking for them. The same happens in the spiritual life, which is the domain of the monk and friar.

Does this help a little?

Please say, No, if I’m not clear. :yup:

Fraternally,

Br. JR,FFV

Your clear. However…

As much as I love tradition and traditions, I always have to correct traditionalists on this point

This has nothing to do with being a traditionalist or not.

From Timothy:

I asked the novice director about Thomas Kempis, asceticism and mortification and he actually rebuked me pretty sternly. I was quite taken aback by his response.

It doesn’t look like Timothy approached the novice director in an arrogant way. Of course if someone approaches someone learned in a discipline like they know better than the learned person, that person will get upset.

 

[iloveangels]

It was not the intention of any founder that male religious be educated by the laity, diocesan clergy or female religious. The renewal of male religious life has to be about going back to that time when we were self-sufficient and where we were a resource to the rest of the Church. It was not the idea of any of our founders that we live in a give and take relationship with the rest of the Church. We did the giving and the Church did the receiving. Bl. John Paul and now Pope Benedict have repeated the call for religious men to go back to that model. Both have very strong feelings that this is much needed in today’s Church. This kind of takes us back onto the whole issue about roles.

Just as we discuss roles for men and women in liturgy and ministry, there are roles for secular and religious as well. Remember, the key word here is not laity. It is secular. A diocesan priest, a permanent deacon or a diocesan bishop are also secular, but they are not laity.

I believe this is what throws many lay people. The terms faithful and secular have been used to refer to the laity. That’s an incorrect use of both words. All of us make up the faithful, not just the laity. Laity and clergy compose the secular. Religious are in a category of our own. Some religious are clergy and some are not. But they are always religious.

…clip…

Monks and friars do not make it a habit to ever talk about dogma or liturgy. As far as we’re concerned, dogma is written in stone and liturgy is whatever the superior wants it to be. Our life is very simple.

…clip…

When you brought it up, you crossed over into his territory. You did exactly what tradition does not allow. You blurred the lines between the secular and the religious. It is his role to call your attention to Kempis, not the other way around.

Think of it this way. It’s like walking into your cardiologist’s office and start to speak heart medicine. He’ll look at you as if you had just lost your mind.

Br. JR, FFV

Okay, BR JR, now I’m going to be the problem child.

This is where secular Franciscans get all confused because we seem to be the platypusses in the zoo.

We’re secular but we’re Franciscan. And we’ve just come out of this very long period of almost being a sodality, so the confusion is palpable. Nobody really remembers anything else, at least first hand.

But we’re working on it.

 

[TrueLight]

I had a similar reaction [getting upset, my response was more “colorful” then the brother’s] once when a lower enlisted tried to have a conversation with me about something way above his paygrade. I wasn’t upset because I outranked him [pride], I was upset because he was more interested in stuff above his level without bothering to learn and master his level first [and skipping several levels in between to boot]; and because he violated cultural/social norms within the military sub-culture. I would guess that the brother [who I assume is a good brother if the ones I’ve interacted with are any indication of the population as a whole] reacted that way for a similar reason for my reaction.

hmmm. And how dare he not pay his dues before having that sort of conversation right?

 

[iloveangels]

hmmm. And how dare he not pay his dues before having that sort of conversation right?

I think I can answer this one. Because it goes the other way, TrueLight.

I live in a small diocese where we don’t have true orders (except the SFO). We have a now-small congregation of very, old teaching sisters who were originally trained to teach grade school etc. and that’s all we have here. [except for maybe 2 or 3 congregation priests assigned to parishes scattered around the diocese]

So we don’t have the influence of any religious charisms whatsoever in any kind of coordinated or big way. The place is a spiritual desert. It’s the Sahara on steriods. I’m not kidding. The Catholic population is only about 10% here now and dropping. It’s dry, dry, dry. There are two threads in being a Catholic: the liturgical, sacramental and managerial thread which is more or less clerical, and the spiritual or affective (for want of a better word) thread which is from vowed religious. The picture isn’t really complete unless you somehow have influence from both.

When people go to quote spiritual things, who do they quote? Augustine, founder of a religious house; Benedict, founder of the monastic movement in the West; Aquinas, the theologian, who was a Dominican; Francis, founder of the Franciscans; Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, Bonaventure the Franciscan theologian…and on and on. The religious orders are where this stuff comes from.

The management of the church, the administration of the sacraments and the day-to-day care of the laity’s needs? That’s more clerical.
The spiritualities, the theologies, the philosophies, the foundations? That’s more vowed religious.

 

[iloveangels]

But TrueLight, as Br JR has said, the lines were blurred in from about 1800 to about 1950, so it’s not so apparent now because people don’t remember how it’s supposed to be.

But Vatican II and the popes of the late 20th century told the religious orders to go back to their founders and recover their charisms and doing that involves making those “lines” clearer again. So do the recent comments of Benedict XVI.

We need both ways of doing things at the same time. Insisting on everything just being one way is like trying to walk on one foot, but not being able to figure out why we can’t stop hopping.

 

[choliks]

I think the vowed religious is not asking the laity to be like them, rather to learn from them.

 

[iloveangels]

I help with formation of a local OFS fraternity and they still drive me crazy. I expect them to pick up and read. They expect me to come and spoon feed them every month. That’s a very old model that I refuse to follow. It was not St. Francis’ vision.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you, Br. JR! This is needed so much.

 

[TrueLight]

I think I can answer this one. Because it goes the other way, TrueLight.

I live in a small diocese where we don’t have true orders (except the SFO). We have a now-small congregation of very, old teaching sisters who were originally trained to teach grade school etc. and that’s all we have here. [except for maybe 2 or 3 congregation priests assigned to parishes scattered around the diocese]

So we don’t have the influence of any religious charisms whatsoever in any kind of coordinated or big way. The place is a spiritual desert. It’s the Sahara on steriods. I’m not kidding. The Catholic population is only about 10% here now and dropping. It’s dry, dry, dry. There are two threads in being a Catholic: the liturgical, sacramental and managerial thread which is more or less clerical, and the spiritual or affective (for want of a better word) thread which is from vowed religious. The picture isn’t really complete unless you somehow have influence from both.

When people go to quote spiritual things, who do they quote? Augustine, founder of a religious house; Benedict, founder of the monastic movement in the West; Aquinas, the theologian, who was a Dominican; Francis, founder of the Franciscans; Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, Bonaventure the Franciscan theologian…and on and on. The religious orders are where this stuff comes from.

The management of the church, the administration of the sacraments and the day-to-day care of the laity’s needs? That’s more clerical.
The spiritualities, the theologies, the philosophies, the foundations? That’s more vowed religious.

Okay. Yes a lot of the Saints were religious.

And I would hope if I were in the presence of one of these Saints, I could ask a theological question.

But Vatican II and the popes of the late 20th century told the religious orders to go back to their founders and recover their charisms and doing that involves making those “lines” clearer again. So do the recent comments of Benedict XVI.

You mean also going back means knowing your place?

LOL, I don’t know what we’re talking about anymore.

To be honest, most of the stuff I’m talking about involves forum chat.

In real life I show much deference to secular clergy and Religious. I’m sure if I met Br. Jr, I would be shaking.

 

[choliks]

when I’m in the presence of these Saints, I’d probably just sit still in silence and awe. I would be starstruck. Words would fail me.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, BR JR, now I’m going to be the problem child.

This is where secular Franciscans get all confused because we seem to be the platypusses in the zoo.

Now that you mention it, there are a few that I thought looked rather strange.

We’re secular but we’re Franciscan.

True. Just as Franciscan as St. Clare was.

And we’ve just come out of this very long period of almost being a sodality, so the confusion is palpable. Nobody really remembers anything else, at least first hand.

But we’re working on it.

I’m not sure why this is a problem. What did I miss here?

I think I can answer this one. Because it goes the other way, TrueLight.

When people go to quote spiritual things, who do they quote? Augustine, founder of a religious house; Benedict, founder of the monastic movement in the West; Aquinas, gthe theologian, who was a Dominican; Francis, founder of the Franciscans; Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, Bonaventure the Franciscan theologian…and on and on. The religious orders are where this stuff comes from.

The management of the church, the administration of the sacraments and the day-to-day care of the laity’s needs? That’s more clerical.

That’s right. And I would take Aquinas out of that lineup. He never claimed to be a Spiritual Theologian, nor is he held up as one either. He can’t hold a candle to his sister, Catherine of Sienna. Thomas is a Dogmatic Theologian. He deals in dogmas or in plain English, teachings. He never dealt too much on the spiritual life. He wrote very little about it and he is not known for having done much ministry in that area. In fact, that’s not an area where the Dominican Friars look to Thomas. They look to Dominic and Catherine for guidance in the spiritual life.

Dogma tells you what truth is. Spiritual Theology, tells you how to get to heaven. Spiritual Theology, if you want to put it in very modern terms, it’s an applied theology. It tells you what to do with Truth or how to come to know Truth.

Aquinas tells you what Truth is and he defends it. The problem that no one had ever brought up regarding Aquinas until Pope Benedict became pope is that Thomism is “self serving” to quote the Holy Father. It exists for the purpose of teaching truth and defending what it teaches. Thomism does not guarantee that you will become a saint, because you know these things or because you can defend them. That was not what Aquinas was trying to do. He was trying to separate Truth from error. The rest, he left to the spiritual masters. Once he explains the nature of man and of God, it’s up to the spiritual masters to teach you how to use that information to achieve the union of the two natures. Aquinas simply explains them and substantiate the such a union is possible. How? He does not go there. John the Evangelist, Augustine, Benedict, Bernard, Francis, Robert, Clare, Catherine, Teresa of Avila, Therese, John of the Cross, Francis de Sales, Maximilian Kolbe, Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul II and Benedict XVI tell us how to achieve such union.

The work of the parish priest is sacramental, not spiritual. Some are very good at it, because they stayed in school to study spirituality or they studied it on their own. But it’s not required of priests to study the spiritual life. That’s not in the Church’s program of studies for priestly formation. It is in the program of formation for religious and secular orders.

Two parish priests that come to my mind who were naturally gifted in the area of spirituality were John Vianney and Fulton Sheen. I know that St. John had no formal education in Spiritual Theology. I don’t remember about Archbishop Sheen. I know he had an STD. (Degree), but I have no idea what area of theology.

To answer your question, True Light, about pay grade, I think the military analogy is a good one. The Catholic Church functions very much like the military. Every group has its area. We go back to rolls.

The reason that I brought up Traditionalists and Liberals, was not because Tim is either of them. I was trying to point out how both of those groups often get themselves into trouble with the orders, because of their approach. You often find very well read people in both groups, but their approach is too democratic. The Church is not there and I don’t see it going in that direction.

In fact, with the renewal of religious life, I see us going the other way, back to a stratified and very delineated system as it was during the Middle Ages and earlier. I’m not a sociologist, so take this last statement as a speculation on my part.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[iloveangels]

RE: The platypus thing, and SFOs recovering from our confusions.

It’s a role thing with the SFOs too. VERY much a role thing.

There are things that, as SFOs, we should know and be able to “be.” We need to grow into this and stop trying to get somebody else outside the SFO to do it for us, or tell us what to do, step by step.

We’re living a life that’s not the same as before we were professed. We’re professed to a way of life, so that ought to make a difference. We profess in order both a) to participate in saving our own souls by working for constant conversion (which is penance) and b) to bring St. Francis,and ultimately Jesus, to others in a very applied “street-level” way (for want of a better term).

The “street-level” way is part of the Secularity. We haven’t “left the world” in a physical sense. We have jobs and live in houses and belong to families. We go about our business while we do these things we are called to do.

On the other hand, we are not vowed religious. They have roles and we have roles which both groups are supposed to respect (this is what St. Francis wanted). We work together like two different brothers in the same family trying to get the work of the family done. We do our part and the vowed religious do theirs.

Close enough?

 

[iloveangels]

Now that you mention it, there are a few that I thought looked rather strange. /

LOL it is what it is. I took a bath this morning and put on clean clothes and after that, I make no apologies.

True. Just as Franciscan as St. Clare was.
I’m not sure why this is a problem. What did I miss here?

Part of the SFO confusion is a role confusion. I mean you just nailed it when you were talking about roles before, and this is what elicited my comment.

A good part of our confusion is roles. And (name removed by moderator)ut comes from all over–what we call “secular society” (and that confusion) and there is remembered (name removed by moderator)ut among the older members too, that’s no longer appropriate to the context of where we are now. Not that it’s bad or they’re bad or anything like that…no…but what is remembered is not how things work anymore.

SFOs are having to learn to BE Franciscan, and not just talk about it or depend on someone to be our “Front-Man.” (aka, our identity, or our external sense of direction)

[And we have two different but parallel conversations going on here…aka 1) SFOs and roles, and 2) religious and laity. So I’ll shut up for a bit and let the other conversation continue.]

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m very happy you brought this up because this is exactly what patients do these days. We research on the internet, we look at different drugs and treatments and say, “What about this Doc? Have you heard of this?”

Doctors have had to adjust and view patients differently. Patients are more educated now. They can read about side effects right on the internet. They don’t have to sneak a peak at their doctor’s drug book.

A lot of times the patient is wrong or has an incomplete picture. But every now and then you hear of a patient who brings up a treatment the doctor has never heard of and that treatment ends up saving the patient’s life!

In the same way, the laity have access to a lot of knowledge. I do not understand why a Religious would get upset if someone brings up a topic to them. Maybe they respect them as an expert and would like to know their opinion?

To get upset to me is pride.

There is something wrong with your analogy. A patient/doctor relationship is very different from a lay person/religious relationship. The main thing is that it is the patients health that is in question. The patient has a right and duty to bring up everything that concerns them about their health.

In a lay person/religious relationship the main issue is the spiritual life of the religious. This is not something that the lay person has any say in.

As Br JR pointed out earlier, religious orders were founded for two purposes;

• The Salvation of the religious
• The education of the laity in Christian spirituality

 

[JReducation]

I think the vowed religious is not asking the laity to be like them, rather to learn from them.

BINGO!

Okay. Yes a lot of the Saints were religious.

And I would hope if I were in the presence of one of these Saints, I could ask a theological question.

He can only answer you, if he’s a theologian. Most saints were not.

You mean also going back means knowing your place?

LOL, I don’t know what we’re talking about anymore.

Except that when said that way, in our society today, it means something very negative. When said in the context of the Church, we’re talking about recovering some sense of structure, order, and identity as individuals and as groups.

In real life I show much deference to secular clergy and Religious. I’m sure if I met Br. Jr, I would be shaking.

I don’t bite. Ask the brothers. The will tell you that I’m a stickler for tradition, but I’m a softy too. I received 12 new novices last night. They had me crying.

when I’m in the presence of these Saints, I’d probably just sit still in silence and awe. I would be starstruck. Words would fail me.

I know that experience very well. I’ve met three in my lifetime. Archbishop Sheen, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul.

Archbishop Sheen I met in a crowd. That was not too bad. He and I exchanged greetings in 90 secs or less.

Bl. John Paul I attended his Midnight Mass one Christmas. He granted me the grace of a private audience before I entered religious life. My son’s last request of me, before we part was to meet Pope John Paul. My superior made it happen. We spoke for about 5 min. The next time I met him was at a formal visitation of the order. We were about 50 of us. He came around the room and greeted each of us. I was stunned when he came to me and said, “Brother, how is your young son?” Three years had gone by. Do you realize how many people a pope meets in three years?

Bl. Mother Teresa I met in Washington, before I entered religious life. She was opening a shelter for AIDS patients. I worked for Archdiocese at the time. I helped them a little bit to get open. On the opening day, everyone gathered. She was there. As he said hello to different people, I pushed through the crowd or I was pushed. I have no idea. I just felt my self propelled forward. Suddenly, I was standing in front of her. I reached out for her hand. She looked at me and said, “What are you waiting for?” I looked at her and said, “Excuse me Mother?” She repeated, “What are you waiting for? Can’t you hear him calling?” I was totally confused. That night I had a dream. I was in a room with no windows and no candles or electricity, yet there was light. I looked directly in front of me and in a wheel chair was our Holy Father Francis. I remember very clearly asking him, "Why are you in a wheel chair?’ He looked at me and signaled me to follow. As I followed, I saw written on a wall, “And you will be filled in heaven.”

After I awoke, I knew that I had read those words before. I went to the old books that the friars had given me on St. Francis while I was in their school. And in the Testament I found this And may whoever observes this rule be filled in heaven with the blessing of the most high Father,

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

There is something wrong with your analogy. A patient/doctor relationship is very different from a lay person/religious relationship. The main thing is that it is the patients health that is in question. The patient has a right and duty to bring up everything that concerns them about their health.

In a lay person/religious relationship the main issue is the spiritual life of the religious. This is not something that the lay person has any say in.

As Br JR pointed out earlier, religious orders were founded for two purposes;

• The Salvation of the religious
• The education of the laity in Christian spirituality

The conversation got sort of muddled, but I was originally responding to Br. Jay’s comment on how the novice director probably snapped at Tim because Tim dared to bring up theology to him.

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t bite. Ask the brothers. The will tell you that I’m a stickler for tradition, but I’m a softy too. I received 12 new novices last night. They had me crying.

12?!

AWESOME. That’s wonderful!