St Thomas More: a question

[30miller]

Neither of the above. In Gone With the Wind the name refers to a place. In the Kennedy case, the name is a family name. The Kennedys are not a royal house.

I gave the example of young Prince William of Wales. His legal name is William Mountbatten. But he is Prince of Wales. Therefore he is William of Wales. His anscestors are of the Royal House of Windsor. When he entered the Briths Armed Forces, he was registered as William of Windsor and his badge simply said Windsor, just like a Armed Forces people have a badge with their family name: Smith etc.

Francis de says was of royal lineage. He belong to the Royal House of Sales. He did not use his last name, but his royal name. Francis of Sales or in French Francois de Sales.

This is not the same as Francis of Assisi. In his case, his legal name remains. St. Francis of Assisi was burried as Giovanni Bernadone or John Bernadone. Francesco was his nickname and Assisi was his home town. There was no royal house of Assisi. There is an interesting anecdote about this, which has nothing to do with this thread. But some people may enjoy it.

For over 200 years no one could find the grave of St. Francis of Assisi. The reason was that everyone looked for a grave with that name. It was by accident that the grave of Giovanni Bernadone was discovered. Then everyone remembered that that was his real name. But no one knows him by that name, unless you’re a Franciscan.

Another example is Teresa of Calcutta. Her baptismal name was Agnes and there is no Royal House of Cacutta. In de Sales case, he was an aristocrat from the Royal House of Sales

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you very much. I had tried internet searches and just came up with dead ends - even the usually thorough Catholic Encyclopedia didn’t really lay it out enough that I “got it”.
Very interesting indeed as well is that Francis de Sales (of Royal lineage) became a saint - and so did Jane de Chantal (also of Royal lineage) - and they knew each other with Jane having been influenced by Francis’s preaching. 2 “Royals” who knew each other achieving sainthood. Remarkable.
Your explanation confirms my suspicion that a great disservice was done when “Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales” changed it’s name to "DeSales " University (nearby there is a Kutztown University which did not change it’s name to “Town University” when it changed from a college to a university - it simply went from Kutztown State College to Kutztown University). The clear and unambiguous Catholic identity of “St. Francis de Sales” was intentionally abandoned. And making 1 word (DeSales) out of 2 (de Sales) further “conceals” the Catholic identity of the institution. The best “translation” to make of the new name “DeSales” University would be “Of the House of Sales” University - which, of course, is only gibberish to Americans and can only be explained in the sense I have about intentionally “losing” Catholic identity. In today’s “Catholic” world I would venture the guess that virtually none could share much if any understanding whatsoever about what DeSales means. At best some might state that it “means” Francis de Sales - which, of course, is what it is alluding to in it’s own ambiguous way. Beyond that they would have no clue about anything about Francis, his work, one of the few Doctors of the Church, etc…and losing the “Francis” from Francis de Sales further buries the Catholic identity of the school from the population at large. Living in the general area in Pennsylvania - I ask people all the time what DeSales means and they are clueless, and that’s people of all faiths and from all walks of life.
Anyway, thanks again for your great assistance.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you very much. I had tried internet searches and just came up with dead ends - even the usually thorough Catholic Encyclopedia didn’t really lay it out enough that I “got it”.
Very interesting indeed as well is that Francis de Sales (of Royal lineage) became a saint - and so did Jane de Chantal (also of Royal lineage) - and they knew each other with Jane having been influenced by Francis’s preaching. 2 “Royals” who knew each other achieving sainthood. Remarkable.
Your explanation confirms my suspicion that a great disservice was done when “Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales” changed it’s name to "DeSales " University (nearby there is a Kutztown University which did not change it’s name to “Town University” when it changed from a college to a university - it simply went from Kutztown State College to Kutztown University). The clear and unambiguous Catholic identity of “St. Francis de Sales” was intentionally abandoned. And making 1 word (DeSales) out of 2 (de Sales) further “conceals” the Catholic identity of the institution. The best “translation” to make of the new name “DeSales” University would be “Of the House of Sales” University - which, of course, is only gibberish to Americans and can only be explained in the sense I have about intentionally “losing” Catholic identity. In today’s “Catholic” world I would venture the guess that virtually none could share much if any understanding whatsoever about what DeSales means. At best some might state that it “means” Francis de Sales - which, of course, is what it is alluding to in it’s own ambiguous way. Beyond that they would have no clue about anything about Francis, his work, one of the few Doctors of the Church, etc…and losing the “Francis” from Francis de Sales further buries the Catholic identity of the school from the population at large. Living in the general area in Pennsylvania - I ask people all the time what DeSales means and they are clueless, and that’s people of all faiths and from all walks of life.
Anyway, thanks again for your great assistance.

You’re welcome for the assistance. However, I would not go as far as to say that DeSales University denies its Catholic identity. The DeSales is not because of St. Francis de Sales. It was renamed DeSales after the Oblates who are best known not as the Oblates, but as the Salesians.

I’ll give you an example. Franciscan University is not named after St. Francis of Assisi. It’s named after the Franciscan Brothers of Penance of the Third Order Regular. But the name of the Order is so long that no one calls them that. Everyone calls them the Franciscans. Their school is called Franciscan U. The same happens to the Oblates. They are the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales or simply the Salesians. That’s how the school gets its name, fromt the name of the congregation. Originally they were known as the De Sales Oblates, then the Salesian Oblates and today, the Salesians.

The DeSales is to distinguid them from the Brothers of Christian Schools who have changed their name to the De La Salle Christian Brothers. John Baptist de La Salle was also an aristocrat. But his schools and congregation became DeLaSalle.

You see how this happens?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[30miller]

You’re welcome for the assistance. However, I would not go as far as to say that DeSales University denies its Catholic identity. The DeSales is not because of St. Francis de Sales. It was renamed DeSales after the Oblates who are best known not as the Oblates, but as the Salesians.

I’ll give you an example. Franciscan University is not named after St. Francis of Assisi. It’s named after the Franciscan Brothers of Penance of the Third Order Regular. But the name of the Order is so long that no one calls them that. Everyone calls them the Franciscans. Their school is called Franciscan U. The same happens to the Oblates. They are the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales or simply the Salesians. That’s how the school gets its name, fromt the name of the congregation. Originally they were known as the De Sales Oblates, then the Salesian Oblates and today, the Salesians.

The DeSales is to distinguid them from the Brothers of Christian Schools who have changed their name to the De La Salle Christian Brothers. John Baptist de La Salle was also an aristocrat. But his schools and congregation became DeLaSalle.

You see how this happens?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes - and your explanation makes perfect sense if it is correct. In that regard, I must ask if you have some “inside information” regarding DeSales name change that is not available to the general public. I ask that because I have lived in this general area my whole life and the original name of the school was Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales - not Allentown College of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales. It was a clear and direct reference to St. Francis and not the Oblates. And that was certainly the general understanding of all Catholics who were solicited by the initial fundraisers (my parents, grandparents, aunts & uncles being among those).
DeSales own website states the following: “…The name and status changes, effective January 1, 2001, were made in recognition of the institution’s academic excellence, faculty commitment, Catholic heritage and continued growth in graduate education…”. If your explanation is correct, why don’t they just post that as the reason on the website - as certainly no one would have any problem with them “preserving their original intended reference” by distinguishing their name from other possible similar ones (e.g. De La Salle Christian Brothers)? In fact, “DeSales” alone (sans St. Francis) is by far more likely to be confused with De La Salle the way it is now.
So, I must say that if your explanation is correct - then it has escaped every Catholic I know and have known for years in the area - in fact, it is so oblique that it is almost “Da Vinci Codesque” in it’s “misdirection”, if I can call it that.
Regarding Franciscan University of Steubenville - I’m glad you mentioned them. Having seen and enjoyed Fr. Michael Scanlan many times on EWTN - I was amazed when I just went to their website ( franciscan.edu/OurHistory/ ) and read the story of how he “saved” the school starting in the 1970’s. Though I was well aware of his intellectual brilliance from EWTN - I was not aware of the amazing hands-on decisions and accomplishments that went in to his leadership at Steubenville. Absolutely amazing. Everyone should read this short history at their website.

 

[catharina]

There has been only ONE statement of infallible teaching in the entire history of the church.

You are teaching error on these forums, by leading people to think that you know what you are talking about.

There is absolutely NO infallible statement from the Church concerning contraception. Pope Paul VI wrote an paper in which HE condemned it, but he did NOT publish it as a matter of faith and morals for all Roman Catholics.

In fact, various people in the church can teach error, and have on many occasions throughout the ages. One very obvious example was the “selling of indulgences”, which directly led Martin Luther to rebel against the church. In effect, the Church was teaching that the rich could buy their way into heaven (directly contradicting the teachings of Jesus by the way).

During the middle ages, when the Borgia’s controlled the Papacy, there was error all over the place. Many of those Popes had mistresses and children all over the Vatican, they favored their families over the body of the church and they taught error left and right.

To attempt to claim that the Church can never teach error is silly. It can, and it has from time to time.

What it can NOT do is teach specific errors about Faith and Morals. That is the ONLY area where the Church as a whole is infallible, as is the Pope as spokesman for the whole Church. Contraception was NOT made a matter of faith and morals. Neither is the issue of married clergy, female clergy, etc. Those are issues on which the Church, and the Pope, can be very wrong indeed.

As an example, Jesus chose 12 men to be his specific Apostles. At least 11 of those men were married (they do not know if Judas was for certain). So, was Jesus in error when he chose married men to be his BISHOPS (the Apostles were the first Bishops after all), or is the Church in error to prevent married men from becoming Priests?

The same goes for women. Jesus chose Mary Magdalene as one of his disciples, and she played a very important part in his ministry. So, who are the Church leaders to deny that women have the capability to become Priests?

Originally, virtually no Priest or Bishop would have been single, because to do so was to thwart several commands from the Old Testament. Only those that chose to become Hermits would have automatically been single. It was only in later years that the concept of “Emulating Christ” by remaining single came into being.

How about truly emulating Christ, and choosing married men to become Priests? After all, he could have chosen only single men, had he wished his Apostles to be single. He did not, so it makes no theological sense for his successors to claim that being single makes you closer to God, or more capable of working your ministry full time. In fact, very few Priests actually are available “full time”, as most of them take at least one, and many two, days off each week.

My grandfather was a Minister for 55 years. He was also married, and the father of 3 children that lived to adulthood (7 children were born to them). He had no problem being available to his flock 24/7, and he also had no problem being able to tell the difference between property of the church and his own property (which was one of the major reasons why the Church imposed Celibacy).

And what does all of this have to do with St. Thomas More? You have totally highjacked this thread, turning it into your version of the theology of the Church.

Just to let you know, I have my Ed.D in Rehabilitation Counseling, and I have a Masters in Theology, both through the University of San Francisco.

Actually, the error is yours.

You recall that the Church teaches the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption
as “declared” infallible teachings. That’s ONE and TWO, for starters.

In addition, many Church teachings are held to be infallible since the Church can’t
teach error in the matter of Faith and Morals.

You are new to CA and you begin your time here accusing another of teaching error.
Wow. Wow again.

Also - what does your grandfather have to do with the topic of St. Thomas More?

Anyway, welcome to the site.

 

[30miller]

The same goes for women. Jesus chose Mary Magdalene as one of his disciples, and she played a very important part in his ministry. So, who are the Church leaders to deny that women have the capability to become Priests?

What do you mean by “very important part” of the ministry of Jesus??? I thought we know next to nothing about her (and what little we do know are mostly “legends” like the absurd idea that she married Jesus and they had children -thanks to the Dan Brown and his ilk). To pose Mary Magdalene in an “if…then” scenario resulting in an attempt to justify priesthood for women by using her is ludicrous.

 

[albertziggy]

Franciscans did not call the pope Holy Father until much later. He was Lord Pope. That’s why we can call Dominic and Francis Holy Father.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Brother JR! How are you?

I am just curious as to why the pope was called Lord Pope by our early Franciscan brethren. Was this an influence of the feudal system?

Thanks!

In Christ,
albertziggy

 

[JReducation]

Yes - and your explanation makes perfect sense if it is correct. In that regard, I must ask if you have some “inside information” regarding DeSales name change that is not available to the general public. I ask that because I have lived in this general area my whole life and the original name of the school was Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales - not Allentown College of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales. It was a clear and direct reference to St. Francis and not the Oblates. And that was certainly the general understanding of all Catholics who were solicited by the initial fundraisers (my parents, grandparents, aunts & uncles being among those).
DeSales own website states the following: “…The name and status changes, effective January 1, 2001, were made in recognition of the institution’s academic excellence, faculty commitment, Catholic heritage and continued growth in graduate education…”. If your explanation is correct, why don’t they just post that as the reason on the website - as certainly no one would have any problem with them “preserving their original intended reference” by distinguishing their name from other possible similar ones (e.g. De La Salle Christian Brothers)? In fact, “DeSales” alone (sans St. Francis) is by far more likely to be confused with De La Salle the way it is now.
So, I must say that if your explanation is correct - then it has escaped every Catholic I know and have known for years in the area - in fact, it is so oblique that it is almost “Da Vinci Codesque” in it’s “misdirection”, if I can call it that.
Regarding Franciscan University of Steubenville - I’m glad you mentioned them. Having seen and enjoyed Fr. Michael Scanlan many times on EWTN - I was amazed when I just went to their website ( franciscan.edu/OurHistory/ ) and read the story of how he “saved” the school starting in the 1970’s. Though I was well aware of his intellectual brilliance from EWTN - I was not aware of the amazing hands-on decisions and accomplishments that went in to his leadership at Steubenville. Absolutely amazing. Everyone should read this short history at their website.

I won’t attempt to speak for the Salesians. My guess is that like many other religious orders of men, the Salesians are finding that opening up every decision that they make and allowing the laity in on it only increases the sense of entitlement that many lay people believe they have regarding religious. People often confuse things. Many religious communities, such as the clerks regular, which the Salesians are, were founded to serve the laity. But they were not founded to be submissive to the laity. Many people confuse service with control.

You would not believe how many people believe that they can have a say in everything and every decision that religious make, as if religious were public figures. Nothing is further from the truth. Most religious communities of men and secular orders are exempt communities. The laity and the bishops have no jurisdiction over them. To avoid conflicts, you just do what you feel you have to do or what you want to do and you don’t discuss it.

I know that in our own Franciscan family, there is a policy that all decisions are to be made without any imput from the laity or the bishops. They are to be internal, to be made in chapters and to be submitted to the Holy Father for approval before they are made public. By the time something is made public it has been signed and sealed by the Holy See. If you open the door to too many voices, you go crazy. It’s very hard to get anything done. You don’t even open the door to every member of your community. Only those who are elected as delegates to chapters have a voice and a vote. Everyone else submits. Decisions such as name changes are capitular decisions which are canonically binding on the laity and the religious. Canonically binding means that by canon law, they cannot be changed until another chapter.

I also know that there has always been a problem with the name Francis. That’s another question that has come up among religious. For example, almost all institutions and organizations named after Francis Xavier are called Xaverian or simply Xavier. Those with the name Francis de Sales are called Salesian, DeSales or another name associated with the Oblates. The other Francis have often been confused with Francis of Assisi.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Hi Brother JR! How are you?

I am just curious as to why the pope was called Lord Pope by our early Franciscan brethren. Was this an influence of the feudal system?

Thanks!

In Christ,
albertziggy

Popes and bishops are royalty, even to this day. The only countries that do not refer to them by their proper royal titles are the former English colonies. In English the bishop is Lord Bishop, Excellency, Grace or simply Lord. The rest of the Catholic world calls bishops Monsignore, which means, My Lord. We have some priests who are given the regal title, without the office of the bishop. We call them Monsignor in English or Monsignore in other languages. They have the privileges of a bishop, but not the office.

Holy Father is an Eastern title. The Eastern Churches always called the pope, Holy Father. The Church of the West gradually adopted that title.

When Francis was alive he was Father Francis, even though he was a lay man. After his canonization he became Saintly Father or Holy Father, depending on what language you were using.

Francis of Assisi has three titles given to him by the Church: The Holy Father Francis, The Seraphic Father, The Mirror of Perfection. Dominic was also given the title The Holy Father Dominic. They are the only two saints who share the title Holy Father with the pope. The other founding fathers are simply called, Father. Father Benedict, Father Bernard, Father St. Elijah, and so forth. The title, Father, has nothing to do with the priesthood. It is Father because they are the spiritual fathers, just as a woman is a Mother. In the Franciscan tradition we refer to Clare as Mother Clare or Holy Mother Clare.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[30miller]

… opening up every decision that they make and allowing the laity in on it only increases the sense of entitlement that many lay people believe they have regarding religious… Many religious communities … were founded to serve the laity. But they were not founded to be submissive to the laity. Many people confuse service with control.

You would not believe how many people believe that they can have a say in everything and every decision that religious make, as if religious were public figures. Nothing is further from the truth. Most religious communities of men and secular orders are exempt communities. The laity and the bishops have no jurisdiction over them. To avoid conflicts, you just do what you feel you have to do or what you want to do and you don’t discuss it.

I know that in our own Franciscan family, there is a policy that all decisions are to be made without any imput from the laity or the bishops. They are to be internal, to be made in chapters and to be submitted to the Holy Father for approval before they are made public. By the time something is made public it has been signed and sealed by the Holy See. If you open the door to too many voices, you go crazy. It’s very hard to get anything done. You don’t even open the door to every member of your community. Only those who are elected as delegates to chapters have a voice and a vote. Everyone else submits. Decisions such as name changes are capitular decisions which are canonically binding on the laity and the religious. Canonically binding means that by canon law, they cannot be changed until another chapter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow! Where did that come from? Not one comment was made addressing as to who it is who gets “the power” to “…just do what you feel you have to do or what you want to do …”. The issue at hand is a fait accompli - no laity (name removed by moderator)ut (beyond $$$$$) was ever asked for and none was ever proffered. But it is now very clear where we laity stand - both canonically, if you are correct in all your assertions, and in the mind of those who claim “to serve”. The laity = provide $$$$$ + provide students (which also = $$$$$). The seed money ($$$$$) to start up ventures such as St. Francis De Sales College…and then the ongoing students (think $$$$$) to sustain DeSales University. You’ve made this point very clear. We’re a one-trick pony. Thank you for your time and good luck to you.

 

[simple_soul]

Wow! Where did that come from? Not one comment was made addressing as to who it is who gets “the power” to “…just do what you feel you have to do or what you want to do …”. The issue at hand is a fait accompli - no laity (name removed by moderator)ut (beyond $$$$$) was ever asked for and none was ever proffered. But it is now very clear where we laity stand - both canonically, if you are correct in all your assertions, and in the mind of those who claim “to serve”. The laity = provide $$$$$ + provide students (which also = $$$$$). The seed money ($$$$$) to start up ventures such as St. Francis De Sales College…and then the ongoing students (think $$$$$) to sustain DeSales University. You’ve made this point very clear. We’re a one-trick pony. Thank you for your time and good luck to you.

*I am sorry but I do not get it. What is wrong with were the laity stand canonically or in the minds of those who claim to serve. I thought the whole reason one would give money to non-profit organizations, especially the ones mentioned in your’s and Br. JR’s posts, is out of charity or the goodness of ones heart. Not so one can have a say in their matters. Or did I miss something? *

 

[30miller]

*I am sorry but I do not get it. What is wrong with were the laity stand canonically or in the minds of those who claim to serve. I thought the whole reason one would give money to non-profit organizations, especially the ones mentioned in your’s and Br. JR’s posts, is out of charity or the goodness of ones heart. Not so one can have a say in their matters. Or did I miss something? *

You missed something. It’s only about 3 back-and-forth posts so if you don’t get it you just don’t get it, I guess. If you simply read them they say and have nothing to do with the canonical “power” of the laity (or bishops, for that matter, since they were lumped in with the laity on the previous post for some unknown reason). Br. JR simply takes completely off on that tangent and now you present it as if it was the issue at hand. It was not.
A reason for and explanation of the name change was the issue at hand - not at all who had “the power” and who didn’t have “the power” to make it. As I previously stated - the name change has been a fait accompli for years now. That’s a done deal. Period. But Br. JR took a shot at his best educated guess at explaining it. I questioned it with legitimate points. Then Br. JR went off on this “power” thing and left it at that. And you jump on that.
It also has nothing to do with giving money to non-profits or anyone else for that matter. I only responded to Br. JR’s “power” post by pointing out the one blatantly noticeable missing key component in the “power” game that he, for some unknown reason, simply ignored in his explication - i.e. the $$$$$ that makes everything possible and the source of it. The laity, as the source of ALL the $$$$$, certainly can ask what the rationale was behind the name change - that in no way constitutes a “power” grab in any way. So the whole “power” thing was simply out of left field.
To follow through with your line of reasoning - i.e. “… I thought the whole reason one would give money to non-profit organizations, especially the ones mentioned in your’s and Br. JR’s posts, is out of charity or the goodness of ones heart. Not so one can have a say in their matters…”. Then I would say that I thought the whole reason one would join an Order with the stated intention of “serving others” is out of the same “goodness of ones heart” - not so one can go off on some tangent about the “power” they have and that the bishops and laity do not have. And I highlighted the word “their” for the simple reason that I never and I mean never looked at this issue as something that “they” owned. I thought (and, of course still do think) that as a member of the group (the laity) paying for everything to do with the issue that it wasn’t too much to ask for the rationale behind the name change. That’s all. Pretty simple, really.

 

[JReducation]

You missed something. It’s only about 3 back-and-forth posts so if you don’t get it you just don’t get it, I guess. If you simply read them they say and have nothing to do with the canonical “power” of the laity (or bishops, for that matter, since they were lumped in with the laity on the previous post for some unknown reason). Br. JR simply takes completely off on that tangent and now you present it as if it was the issue at hand. It was not.
A reason for and explanation of the name change was the issue at hand - not at all who had “the power” and who didn’t have “the power” to make it. As I previously stated - the name change has been a fait accompli for years now. That’s a done deal. Period. But Br. JR took a shot at his best educated guess at explaining it. I questioned it with legitimate points. Then Br. JR went off on this “power” thing and left it at that. And you jump on that.
It also has nothing to do with giving money to non-profits or anyone else for that matter. I only responded to Br. JR’s “power” post by pointing out the one blatantly noticeable missing key component in the “power” game that he, for some unknown reason, simply ignored in his explication - i.e. the $$$$$ that makes everything possible and the source of it. The laity, as the source of ALL the $$$$$, certainly can ask what the rationale was behind the name change - that in no way constitutes a “power” grab in any way. So the whole “power” thing was simply out of left field.
To follow through with your line of reasoning - i.e. “… I thought the whole reason one would give money to non-profit organizations, especially the ones mentioned in your’s and Br. JR’s posts, is out of charity or the goodness of ones heart. Not so one can have a say in their matters…”. Then I would say that I thought the whole reason one would join an Order with the stated intention of “serving others” is out of the same “goodness of ones heart” - not so one can go off on some tangent about the “power” they have and that the bishops and laity do not have. And I highlighted the word “their” for the simple reason that I never and I mean never looked at this issue as something that “they” owned. I thought (and, of course still do think) that as a member of the group (the laity) paying for everything to do with the issue that it wasn’t too much to ask for the rationale behind the name change. That’s all. Pretty simple, really.

It is not an issue of power. The distancing in the decision making processes is to avoid conflict of power. There is a history of such conflicts between laity and religious or bishops and religious. To avoid such conflicts, the Church erects certain religious orders to exempt status.

What I’m trying to point out here is that the reasons for the change was an internal decision of the Salesians. They most likely did not consult outsiders to avoid being questioned about it and getting into debates over the issue. There can sometimes be something as too many people involved in a decision.

If you noticed, I also said that in the larger orders, such as the Salesians, but not only them, not all the religious participate in these decisions either. Delegates are elected and sent to the chapter. Whatever these delagates decide, the entire order must obey under penalty of law. It is very likely that the name was changed by a chapter, not by a community vote of the Salesians.

Large religious communities avoid involving too many people in these discernments, because they have been burnt in the past. Money has certainly been used as a means to control religious orders. To avoid this, Pope Innocent III forbade this. Episcopal power was also used to control religious orders. Pope Innocent III forbade this too. As orders grew in numbers, the superiors also forbade full participation to every member and limited it to elected capitulars. Basically, decisions are made by an elected body of religious or by a body authorized by common law. This does not rule out consultation with others. What it does is that it reduces the number of voices so that you don’t have a chaotic process.

There was no offense meant. It was meant to explain why people don’t always know how and when these things are done, such as changing the name of a school. They don’t know, because it’s done internally. This is done by a body who has the authority to do so. They decide what is best for their community and for their ministry. That was my point. I will probably never know either why the college changed its name. But I don’t ask, because I know that it’s done by those who have the auhority to do it and who have a good reason to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

A reason for and explanation of the name change was the issue at hand - not at all who had “the power” and who didn’t have “the power” to make it. .

*I believe I understand this. I did not read his post as saying who did or did not have the “the power.” That is why I felt I had missed some thing in what was said by Br. JR that made you “seem” to take what he said personally. I apologize if this was not the case. *

 

[30miller]

*I believe I understand this. I did not read his post as saying who did or did not have the “the power.” That is why I felt I had missed some thing in what was said by Br. JR that made you “seem” to take what he said personally. I apologize if this was not the case. *

Absolutely no need to apologize. A misunderstanding is a misunderstanding. I probably should have simply been much more succinct by saying that the $$$$$ is the thing you were missing in what Br. JR said (and left out).

 

[30miller]

I will probably never know either why the college changed its name.

Thank you - that answers the question at hand.

Now - to your new issue of “power” and the what you consider the proper exercise of same - your post explains a state of mind that you have chosen to embrace. Fine -that’s your choice. In a much better world that might be a choice that we laity could support. Unfortunately, the Orders as a rule do not deserve any unquestioned support from the laity. One would have to be sealed away from the world in a monastery (to turn a phrase) to not be aware of the terrible record of the decision-making processes of the Orders currently. E.g. the Christian Brothers offering $200 Million to Ireland alone for their bad decisions there (and yes, the abuse crisis is really all about bad decisions by those in power in the Orders - far beyond the crimes of the perpetrators of abuse themselves). The Jesuits $50 Million in Alaska alone. And as far as $$$$$ goes, this list goes on and on. Beyond $$$$, the decision making of many Orders is almost unbelievable. The Daughters of Charity allow Sister Carol Keehan to thumb her nose at the entire body of bishops in the U.S. and the teachings of the Catholic Church by supporting a so-called health “reform” bill that allows for abortion - and this tragedy has played out already as it was on the news in the last week that 10 states will provide abortion under the auspices of the new bill’s “extraordinary” measures already in effect. Orders of nuns in general are refusing to cooperate with the Vatican’s visitation program - exerting their wished-for “power” over the Vatican in ALL things - which, of course, they don’t have as the Vatican does have canonical authority over the Orders and has every right (and more importantly obligation) to oversight that the Orders are conducting themselves in a manner that deserves the support of the Church (and the laity, which = $$$$$ again) that they are CATHOLIC groups. Do I need to go on? Lets look at the Legionaires of Christ and their unanimous testimony that none of them knew the totally evil things their “power” leader did over the last 50 years - Marcial Maciel. Look at the Jesuits Fr. Thomas Reese and his uncontrolled undermining of everything Catholic for decades - then when the new pope exerts proper authority to have him removed from his prominent position of dissent the Jesuits do nothing when Reese continues his tactics of apostasy by repeated appearances on the lamestream media always presenting himself and speaking as a Catholic (not a Jesuit) with the damage done to the Catholic Church, (not the Jesuits). And on and on and on.
No, as to the issue of “power” and who has it in the Orders - they all would do themselves well to not make “secrets” out of things that do not require it. They might try spending some more time on humility than on power.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

JReducation, I still don’t understand about Mirari Vos . . . It says that “liberty of conscience,” is the problem, and that it spreads from indifferentism. Is “liberty of conscience” code for “relativism”? I don’t mean to be sarcastic. I just don’t have intellectual closure on this matter. I also would like to see some of our recent papal statements where the say freedom of religious expression is part of natural law and violating it is a sin.

Here’s what Mirari Vos says, again:

1. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws – in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely** immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech**, and desire for novelty.

 

[simple_soul]

Absolutely no need to apologize. A misunderstanding is a misunderstanding. I probably should have simply been much more succinct by saying that the $$$$$ is the thing you were missing in what Br. JR said (and left out).

*I believe what I did not get out of Br. JR’s post was not only did it not have anything to do with “the power” (as you put it) or having to do with $$$$$. But it had everything to do with minimizing confusion when decisions needed to be made within the organization. It’s like one of my Mother’s saying: “To many chefs in the kitchen spoil the broth.” *

 

[catharina]

I believe what I did not get out of Br. JR’s post was not only did it not have anything to do with “the power” (as you put it) or having to do with $$$$$. But it had everything to do with minimizing confusion when decisions needed to be made within the organization. It’s like one of my Mother’s saying: "Too many chefs in the kitchen spoil the broth."

In my parents’ home there was a similar saying, since both sets
of my grandparents were comfortable with Native American tribes and customs.

The saying: “The trouble with this gathering is too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.”

Identical meaning to your mother’s saying, I think - or at least, close enough.

(Apologies to any Native Americans who might find this offensive. No hurt intended.)

PS - IMO, related meanings of both old sayings:
When everyone is “in charge” then no one is ‘in charge.’ Result: not the best.

 

[simple_soul]

In my parents’ home there was a similar saying, since both sets
of my grandparents were comfortable with Native American tribes and customs.

The saying: “The trouble with this gathering is too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.”

Identical meaning to your mother’s saying, I think - or at least, close enough.

(Apologies to any Native Americans who might find this offensive. No hurt intended.)

This is what my Mother used to tell us too. Especially when us children were all trying to tell each other how to do some project or play some kind of game.

PS - IMO, related meanings of both old sayings:
When everyone is “in charge” then no one is ‘in charge.’ Result: not the best.

Exactly!

 

[JReducation]

JReducation, I still don’t understand about Mirari Vos . . . It says that “liberty of conscience,” is the problem, and that it spreads from indifferentism. Is “liberty of conscience” code for “relativism”? I don’t mean to be sarcastic. I just don’t have intellectual closure on this matter. I also would like to see some of our recent papal statements where the say freedom of religious expression is part of natural law and violating it is a sin.

Here’s what Mirari Vos says, again:

1. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws – in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely** immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech**, and desire for novelty.

The problem is not the freedomn of conscience. The problem is that conscience must be well formed and many people do not make an effort to do this. The Church has stated over and over again that there is such a thing as the primacy of conscience. She has also stated the necessity to form one’s conscience to the best of one’s ability.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF