The Politics of the Habit

[TiggerS]

I know that you probably don’t mean this in this way but it is not the cloths that makes a person holy.

Not everyone wearing a habit is “a holy person”.

No need for apologies. Your point is well taken.

Not everyone who likes to see religious in habits or who may prefer to see this are necessarily trying to impose their views.

It just seems that some here at CAF do want to tell religious how to live and they get very adamant about it to the point of being very disrespectful.

It is those that I am trying to understand what is missing in their lives that they must try to impose such things on religious.

Thank you for your graciousness, Brother. I read the disrespectful posts as well and it brings me grief and concern - and I am laity. Much misunderstanding seems to abound at times about religious life per se and that it is a gift given to the founders and foundresses that applies and affirmed by The Church - and not all of founders or foundresses desired membership to wear a habit. Theirs is the gift from God and it is that gift that they apply and membership then follow. And there may be other factors as well including re modification of the habit as appropriate. And it can seem no matter how many times it is explained and carefully and fully - and often by Brother JR, some want to cling to their own concepts re religious life and the habit, though outside of religious life and not called to it, and with minds closed on the issue and closed to the facts or the reality of the situations applying to the different religious life families. This is very sad and divisive in The Church.

I love the religious habit, but if Rome says “Jump please” then I ask “How high, please”. Also, I know religious in habit and in secular clothing and they are all wonderful people. Been Catholic all my life, educated in the Catholic system all my life too, and my only problem with religious and priests have been personality clashes and rare at that - and this is a natural and normal type of problem that can occur everywhere in life. I love 'em all and not for what they wear, but for who they are - what they are are human beings like the rest of us in an extraordinary way of life that only God’s Grace can explain to my mind.

Thanks again, Brother - TiggerS

 

[TiggerS]

It is those that I am trying to understand what is missing in their lives that they must try to impose such things on religious.

I wonder if it has something to do with a reluctance to detach from the known and understood, the meaningful - to discover the new and not yet quite understood and a new and potentially richer meaning. In other words,we detach from our personal security with great reluctance - and sometimes not without a considerable ‘fight’. We like ‘the old’ it is comfortable and ‘safe’ - the new is going to ask more of us inlcluding a willingness to let go of the old or to detach from it. We can be reluctant to let go of personal security and accept a sense of a bit of insecurity until the new becomes the known and hence a place of some rest and security. We are a Church in continual evolution in God’s Divine Providence - and change, I think personally, is going to be inevitable at points because growth means change. If something is growing and alive, it is in a process of change. Lack of growth means change too, but it is a change of deterioration and finally death in the normal course.

Personally, I think that the religious habit and religious in secular clothing will continue to develop side by side. Each has in the externals (religious habit or secular clothing) a particular external witness to give and a particular mission or charism to carry out. If there is no external witness or mission at all to give in secular clothing, then we laity may as well ‘pack up and go home’. It is said of the early Christians “see how they love one another” and no indication that they adopted particular dress or an outward or external identification as Christians except their love - and no matter what we have on our backs as clothes, it is our love and our mutual love for each other and all which should shine and draw attraction and comment - that we do love each other, that we are loving, caring, understanding and compassionate, generous people.

One aspect - I have heard it said that a religious in secular clothing is easier to talk with for some people - others may feel more comfortable with a religious in habit. Room for all on this 'ere ship, me hearties! And The Lord provides for us all - different members in some way as to mission/function in the One Body. St Paul explains it well in something like, the body needs an eye say and an ear. Both have entirely different functions that the body needs to function fully in the exterior world for one. How strange and sabataging to the body if the ear wanted to see.

My take…TS

 

[JReducation]

I wonder if it has something to do with a reluctance to detach from the known and understood, the meaningful - to discover the new and not yet quite understood and a new and potentially richer meaning. In other words,we detach from our personal security with great reluctance - and sometimes not without a considerable ‘fight’. We like ‘the old’ it is comfortable and ‘safe’ - the new is going to ask more of us inlcluding a willingness to let go of the old or to detach from it. We can be reluctant to let go of personal security and accept a sense of a bit of insecurity until the new becomes the known and hence a place of some rest and security. We are a Church in continual evolution in God’s Divine Providence - and change, I think personally, is going to be inevitable at points because growth means change. If something is growing and alive, it is in a process of change. Lack of growth means change too, but it is a change of deterioration and finally death in the normal course.

Personally, I think that the religious habit and religious in secular clothing will continue to develop side by side. Each has in the externals (religious habit or secular clothing) a particular external witness to give and a particular mission or charism to carry out. If there is no external witness or mission at all to give in secular clothing, then we laity may as well ‘pack up and go home’. It is said of the early Christians “see how they love one another” and no indication that they adopted particular dress or an outward or external identification as Christians except their love - and no matter what we have on our backs as clothes, it is our love and our mutual love for each other and all which should shine and draw attraction and comment - that we do love each other, that we are loving, caring, understanding and compassionate, generous people.

One aspect - I have heard it said that a religious in secular clothing is easier to talk with for some people - others may feel more comfortable with a religious in habit. Room for all on this 'ere ship, me hearties! And The Lord provides for us all - different members in some way as to mission/function in the One Body. St Paul explains it well in something like, the body needs an eye say and an ear. Both have entirely different functions that the body needs to function fully in the exterior world for one. How strange and sabataging to the body if the ear wanted to see.

My take…TS

I like what you wrote. I would add a few more points. In the past, there were always those religious, male and female, who did not wear a habit. However, because there were so many in habits, everyone assumed that all religious wore habits. Those who did not, because their founders wanted them to be anonymous, achieved their goal. They were anonymous. Like you cite from St. Paul, people observed these men and women who did what they did with great love, but could not apply it to religious life, because they did not know that these were religious. Which was as the founders wanted. They wanted these men and women to be exemplars for the laity. Some founders, like St. Vincent de Paul, wrote that he wanted his Daughters of Charity to be cloistered.

This is fascinating, because a cloistered women religious was never seen or heard. How did Vincent create this army of women who took care of the poor and remain unseen and unheard? He dressed them in the clothing of the time. No one knew they were there. If you look at the body of St. Louise de Marillac, which is uncorrupt, she’s not wearing a habit. The cornette that became the trademark of the Daughters of Charity was adopted much later. It was imposed by the bishops.

Another point that I would like to add is that many lay people are reflecting the times in which we live. We live in an age of entitlement. Many posters here speak with a sense of ownership cocerning religious. This is not healthy, because it threatens the freedom of the religious life. We become religious to be free of the world, not to be controlled by the outside. That’s why we still do many things in secret and share very little of what goes on inside the walls of the religious house, so as not to be invaded by the lay world. When the lay world invades, our inner silence, life in community, and our freedom is threatened.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

I like what you wrote. I would add a few more points. In the past, there were always those religious, male and female, who did not wear a habit. However, because there were so many in habits, everyone assumed that all religious wore habits. Those who did not, because their founders wanted them to be anonymous, achieved their goal. They were anonymous. Like you cite from St. Paul, people observed these men and women who did what they did with great love, but could not apply it to religious life, because they did not know that these were religious. Which was as the founders wanted. They wanted these men and women to be exemplars for the laity. Some founders, like St. Vincent de Paul, wrote that he wanted his Daughters of Charity to be cloistered.

This is fascinating, because a cloistered women religious was never seen or heard. How did Vincent create this army of women who took care of the poor and remain unseen and unheard? He dressed them in the clothing of the time. No one knew they were there. If you look at the body of St. Louise de Marillac, which is uncorrupt, she’s not wearing a habit. The cornette that became the trademark of the Daughters of Charity was adopted much later. It was imposed by the bishops.

Another point that I would like to add is that many lay people are reflecting the times in which we live. We live in an age of entitlement. Many posters here speak with a sense of ownership cocerning religious. This is not healthy, because it threatens the freedom of the religious life. We become religious to be free of the world, not to be controlled by the outside. That’s why we still do many things in secret and share very little of what goes on inside the walls of the religious house, so as not to be invaded by the lay world. When the lay world invades, our inner silence, life in community, and our freedom is threatened.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As always, Brother, you are an absolute wealth and resource of information re religious life. I must search out “The Incorruptibles” site and have a look at the body of St. Louise de Marillac. If I have seen a picture of it, I have never noted that she was not wearing a religious habit and oversight. And an oversight to correct since it is a great example of what you address in the post above.
My one reservation is your final paragraph above is that there is a risk of setting up an “us and them” mentality. We all belong to the One Body of Christ and share in the same Spirit, each in our own way according to The Spirit. It may be so, I wouldn’t know, but if the laity are some sort of a threat to religious life, then that is very sad indeed - and contrary to The Spirit and the Unity in The Spirit that Jesus prayed so very passionately about before His arrest. Personally, and mind you I am speaking as the lay person that I am, it is a very sad situation indeed when our religious have to protect themselves from the laity. And to be honest, I am not too sure where any fault may lay - if fault there is and it seems to me anyway that there is and an “us and them” type of situation seemingly actually in process.

 

[JReducation]

As always, Brother, you are an absolute wealth and resource of information re religious life. I must search out “The Incorruptibles” site and have a look at the body of St. Louise de Marillac. If I have seen a picture of it, I have never noted that she was not wearing a religious habit and oversight. And an oversight to correct since it is a great example of what you address in the post above.
My one reservation is your final paragraph above is that there is a risk of setting up an “us and them” mentality. We all belong to the One Body of Christ and share in the same Spirit, each in our own way according to The Spirit. It may be so, I wouldn’t know, but if the laity are some sort of a threat to religious life, then that is very sad indeed - and contrary to The Spirit and the Unity in The Spirit that Jesus prayed so very passionately about before His arrest. Personally, and mind you I am speaking as the lay person that I am, it is a very sad situation indeed when our religious have to protect themselves from the laity. And to be honest, I am not too sure where any fault may lay - if fault there is and it seems to me anyway that there is and an “us and them” type of situation seemingly actually in process.

I don’t know if I would call it an “us-them” situation, but the Church has always made distinctions between the secular Catholic and the regular Catholic. Regulars, today known as Religious, have always maintained a degree of distance from the secular or lay Catholic world. There was good reason for this.

The first reason was to avoid contamination. The second reason for the separation has to do with autonomy. The third reason for the separation is to preserve community in the religious house. The fourth is to protect women religious from being controlled by males.

Sisters are finding out that the biggest mistake they made after Vatican II was not taking off habits. That may or may not have been a mistake, depending on the community. But opening their lives to the outside world was tragic. They thought that it was the thing to do, because as you say, “We’re all one body.” This may be true, but even in the body, each organ has its place. They are not blended. They cooperate to keep the whole alive. The heart does not interfere in the function of the brain and the brain is not the liver. What the sisters have found is that they took too much advice from the secular Catholic world on how to run their institutions, their community, their finances, educate their young, what their priorities should be, etc. They have paid a price. It’s not the loss of the habit that decimated their numbers. It’s the loss of their freedom. They allowed the world around them to set expectations for them and they adopted those expectations. Whether those people were well meaning Catholics or secularist lay people, the effect was the same. These women found themselves embroiled in a world that was not theirs.

One of the wisest women religious of our time is Mother Teresa. She had setup a group called the Helpers of Mother Teresa. Originally, they were prayer warriors. Gradually, they became involved in fund raising for the Missionaries of Charity. Then they became involved in the financial management of the Missionaries of Charity. Before Mother Teresa knew it, they were having meetings at expensive hotels in NYC, London, Paris and expensive meals and gatherings. These were lay people whom Mother expected to embrace her way of life and her goals. Instead, they were turning her community into a corporation. One day, at a meeting in NYC, Mother got up and dissolved them. This was a big stink, because they were a legal entity. They had become a 501(c)3 organization. Legally, the CEO cannot dissolve a corporation. Mother thumbed her nose at the civil law and dissolved them, closed all the bank accounts, took the money out of NY and back to Inida and left. I believe this was in the 1980s. In any case, this saved her congregation. To this day, the Missioanries of Charity do not allow anyone into their inner world. No one knows how they use their money, how they govern themselves how they manage their homes. Volunteers work with them and for them. They do wonderful work, but they are not part of the community. They are part of the work. This way, these women manage to maintain their autonomy.

They have a male branch of their congregation. The Missionary Brothers of Charity. They have separate consitutions and separate governments. The males are not allowed to know what the females are doing. This protects the sisters from male control.

There should be cooperation in the apostolate, but separation in government, infrastructure, finances, goals, vision, mission and way of life, with the religious free to venture into the secular world as far as their charism and founders intend for them to venture, without being totally absorbed and pulled back to the world they left and without being told by that world how far in they may or may not go.

The Council of Trent very wisely saw the need for this freedom and created the Right of Exemption. This gives religious of Pontifical Right freedom from lay and episcopal influence and control. It put all the authority in the hands of the major superior and the pope. In 1983, Pope John Paul wrote into Canon Law that the laity has a moral obligation to support the apostolic work of religious, but not to control it. This granted the religious the financial support they need without the controls from outside of the community. It provides services to the laity, especially those in great need: children, sick, elderly, unborn, homeless, etc.

There are always going to be two worlds, the secular Catholic and the regular Catholic. They’re like two lungs in one body.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

There are always going to be two worlds, the secular Catholic and the regular Catholic. They’re like two lungs in one body.

There is only one world created by God; however, there are different calls and vocations in that world. There is the call to be laity and in the world and very much involved with it - while yet not of the world. The world was created by God out of Love. It is His creation and to be loved whether one is religious or laity. While religious are called out of the world for the world. There is nothing in the created order that is not loved by God. To my mind, despising the world and viewing it as somehow tainted and ‘in opposition’ and to be rejected is a faulted theology. To be called out of the world does not mean, to my mind, that I reject theworld. I am simply called out of the world, for the world.

I very much agree with you, Brother. Each of the lifestyles or vocations, religious life and the laity, are two totally different ways of life and vocations - and the laity has no right to interfere with the life of religious. Just as I have no right to interfere with the life of my neighbour. We are the One Body of Christ and interconnected and inter-related. My experience is that religious who may seek to separate themselves from lay people do not hestitate at all to ask them for financial contributions if needed, for example - and we laity are usually tremendously generous to such appeals. We lay people do not hestitate to ask religious to pray for us, or to seek their advice and guidance. And religious usually respond with tremendous generosity. We are interconnected, inter-related and mutually dependant.

As a lay person I should seek to understand and form concepts about religious life and for the reasons I stated in a previous post. I may be raising children and want to be able to inform them and answer questions - or I just may be a simple everyday lay person who now and then is asked questions about religious life and seeks to have the answers. I may be somehow responsible for formation of chldren and as a lay person. I really do think that to regard the laity as some kind of risk of contamination to the ‘purity of religious life’ or something similar really is setting up an “us and them” mentality.

From reading your post above, it strikes me that the problem is not with lay people (and I am smiling because sometimes I agree that it can be so) rather with religious not adhering to the concepts of their founder or foundress and drifting towards the lay state for one reason or another and then blaming laity, in this instance, for their failure. It seems to be a problem of formation of religious perhaps and refusing to come under the influence of laity if laity do seek to interfere in some way. Of having a sound grip on one’s religious vocation and what it means and does not mean. If I am going to feel under threat because of the opinions and concepts of others, then I think my grip on my identity is shaky. And then I deny my problem, which is my own shaky identity and blame the opinions and concepts of others for my failures and my problem… a problem which I cannot identify in the first place with accuracy. And if I cannot accurately identify my problem,???

I really had a giggle at your story about Mother Teresa and the Helpers of MotherTeresa. She always struck me as a feisty little five foot nothing creature that would not “tolerate fools gladly”.

Though we may not see quite eye to eye, Brother, on some points, your posts do remain a wonderful resource and a wealth of information

 

[TiggerS]

These women found themselves embroiled in a world that was not theirs.

Possibly this was so and many mistakes probably have been made as V2 was and is being accurately interpreted and understood - still in process. They made a mistake and we humans can and do make mistakes and rather often. Once identified, we then set about to correct the mistakes and thankfully very often they can be corrected. It seems to me that if religious women found themselves embroiled in the world, rather than being out of the world yet for the world. Then the thing to do is set about correcting the situation. They may not be able to do it overnight, just as it was not an overnight eventuality - it will be a journey as it was a journey to realizing a mistake had been made. But to correct a mistake one needs to identify whatever as a mistake and then chart a course towards correcting the situation with an objective and goal in mind and it may mean small steps over time to any sort of achievement and overall correction.
I read somewhere or other that the ‘looser psychology’ says: If this doesn’t work nothing will. The ‘winner psychology’ says if this doesn’t work, then I will try this and then this and this.

 

[JReducation]

There is only one world created by God; however, there are different calls and vocations in that world.

When religious use the term world, it does not deny this. We use the term world to mean the world of the religious and the world of the secular, the latter includes secular clergy.

To my mind, despising the world and viewing it as somehow tainted and ‘in opposition’ and to be rejected is a faulted theology. To be called out of the world does not mean, to my mind, that I reject theworld. I am simply called out of the world, for the world.

You’re dealing here with a language that is proper to religiuos life. To us, to despise the world, does ont mean that we hate it. Every culture has its language. The religious life also has its language. To us, this concept meant that we reject what the world has to offer to embrace something beyond that. As to being called out of the world for the world, there are founders who do not subscribe to this: Benedict, Francis and Teresa of Avila. You are called out of the world for your salvation and by extension, since we are part of one body, the whole benefits from the spiritual health of the one. For this reason, ministry is accidental to some religious communities, not essential.

As a lay person I should seek to understand and form concepts about religious life and for the reasons I stated in a previous post. I may be raising children and want to be able to inform them and answer questions - or I just may be a simple everyday lay person who now and then is asked questions about religious life and seeks to have the answers.

This is very important. For this reason, we have to stop the debates about what religious should wear or not wear, do or not do, and focus more on what IS religious life, the many forms that it takes, the many charisms that abound and the possibilities for new forms and new charism for the future. People often seem more intent on the externals when the interesting stuff is the stuff that you can’t see.

I really do think that to regard the laity as some kind of risk of contamination to the ‘purity of religious life’ or something similar really is setting up an “us and them” mentality.

We don’t see it as that, “us and them”, but you’re going to see more and more of this avoidance, especially among Dominicans and Franciscans. There is a very strong movement back to the 13th century when we went in, did what we had to do, and left. We avoided such things as friendships with lay people or participating in the dialy activities of the laity. We’re already starting to see the rise of many communities that will not serve in parishes, because it draws you into the life of the parishioners. In the past, we have a tragic experience with that. Most of our men became diocesan priests in habits and our non-ordained brothers were reduced to servants, because there was no place for them in the parish community. What happened was that the brotherhood was “tainted” or affected by the demands and needs of the parishioners. To avoid this, the younger generation of friars does not serve in parishes, unless they are the poor and the immigrant parishes that no one else can cover.

 

[JReducation]

From reading your post above, it strikes me that the problem is not with lay people (and I am smiling because sometimes I agree that it can be so) rather with religious not adhering to the concepts of their founder or foundress and drifting towards the lay state for one reason or another and then blaming laity, in this instance, for their failure.

In great part it was. The example I gave above about the friars in parishes is a good one. The friar should have known better Often they believed they were being kind to the people and being of service to the local church, not realizing that they were drifting away from their charism. The sisters had a similar experience. They thought that by listening to the laity’s needs and requests they were being more available and of greater service. The problem is that no one ever stopped to say, “Hey, wait a minute. The laity will ask for the moon, if you ask them ‘What do you need?’ Because the laity does not know how far the religious cand and should go.” There was the absence of restraint on the part of the religious.

Today’s problem is that the laity became used to this relationship. “We ask and the religious provide.” Now, you have religious saying, “We can’t give you everything you ask for.” For example, we can’t give you Catholic schools for your middlle class parishes, because most of us were not foiunded to educate the middle class. We landed there because these were poor schools that evolved and became middle class Instead of leaving immediately and closing these schools or handing them over to lay people to operate, we stayed thinking that it was a good thing. But it was not a good thing for us. We drifted away from the vision of the founders. The schools are just one example Obviously, there are communities that were founded to educate the middle class, among them are the Sisters of St. Dominic. They thrive in that enviornment without interior conflict and guilty consciences, while Franciscans feel horribly in that enviornment. The Benedictines were alwyas allowed to educate that sector of society. Like this, there were other apostolates that had to be revisited and people don’t like it. They think that we’re being unfaithful when we say that we can no longer do this.

I had someone say that we were being unfaithful because we’re not taking on new parishes, unless they are immigrrant parishes or very poor parishes that cannot pay the priest’s salary. She was wondering why the Franciscans of the Renewal have over 50 priests but are not allowed to do parish work or why my own community, the Franciscans of Life have only enough priests to say mass for us, why not ordain more men? I felt that this peson saw it as abandonment, because they do not understand the charism.

It seems to be a problem of formation of religious perhaps and refusing to come under the influence of laity if laity do seek to interfere in some way. Of having a sound grip on one’s religious vocation and what it means and does not mean. If I am going to feel under threat because of the opinions and concepts of others, then I think my grip on my identity is shaky.

Not really. On has to know that one is human and that one can be swayed.

I really had a giggle at your story about Mother Teresa and the Helpers of MotherTeresa. She always struck me as a feisty little five foot nothing creature that would not “tolerate fools gladly”.

No, she did not. She built one of those communities that is impermeable to the laity. I have heard criticism because the Superior General says, “I have no idea how much money we have.” or “I have no idea how we spend the money. We just pay for things as we need them.” People scream about financial transparency and accountability to their benefactors. But these folks don’t realize that Mother never asked them for a cent. Canon Law requires that they give. Mother never promised to have a finance department and Canon Law does not require one.

Possibly this was so and many mistakes probably have been made as V2 was and is being accurately interpreted and understood - still in process. They made a mistake and we humans can and do make mistakes and rather often. Once identified, we then set about to correct the mistakes and thankfully very often they can be corrected. It seems to me that if religious women found themselves embroiled in the world, rather than being out of the world yet for the world. Then the thing to do is set about correcting the situation. They may not be able to do it overnight, just as it was not an overnight eventuality - it will be a journey as it was a journey to realizing a mistake had been made. But to correct a mistake one needs to identify whatever as a mistake and then chart a course towards correcting the situation with an objective and goal in mind and it may mean small steps over time to any sort of achievement and overall correction.

I read somewhere or other that the ‘looser psychology’ says: If this doesn’t work nothing will. The ‘winner psychology’ says if this doesn’t work, then I will try this and then this and this.

I believe that some mistakes can be corrected. Other mistakes are fatal and maybe this is the Holy Spirit’s way of putting to rest some religious communities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

…

If laity have been permitted to ask too much of religious and religious have met this demand in the past, then laity are not going to like it one bit probably that the situation changes and religious get a grip on their identity and where things need to change and affecting adversely the laity and their demands and expectations. As I posted, it was a journey to realizing that mistakes had been made and it will be a journey to correcting them. And were it me, I would not be alarmed nor surprised if some in the laity did not like it at all with much fuss and bother as that journey is undertaken and implemented.

I believe that some mistakes can be corrected. Other mistakes are fatal and maybe this is the Holy Spirit’s way of putting to rest some religious communities.

Where mistakes have proved fatal then that is The Permissive Will of The Lord and I agree that where mistakes have been fatal it just may be The Holy Spirit’s way of writing very straight in crooked lines and putting some religious communities to rest - and that this could possibly be the good He intends to bring out of negative situations that cannot be amended. I think that the other good to come out of what has happened is that religious will get a more firm grip on their vocation and boundaries and realize the really adverse and destructive situations that potentially could come about if these are ignored - and over time laity, one would certainly hope, will come to a better understanding of religious life and the boundaries involved and know where to stop, not interfere - and be accepting… and appreciative.

because they do not understand the charism.

Very often, I dont think that laity for one, sometimes even diocesan priests for two, understand what a “charism” actually is and what the particular charism of a religious community in their area may actually be. Nor is their common understanding in the general Catholic population, I dont think, of what religious life actually means for those called to it. Generally, we as laity have no understanding at all of the boundaries of religious life and why they are in place. This is where we as laity need to be educated about religious life - and not only for our own personal benefit but also for the benefit of those who may ask questions of us about religious life and religious vocation. And then allow religious to get on with the living out of their own vocation and call from God.
If there are insufficient priests for Mass and The Sacraments and religious communites are unable to help for important reasons, then I think the communities should explain why. Not because they owe an explanation - but to build up community in The Church and mutual understanding and appreciation, value. And to contribute to the further education of laity.

 

[TiggerS]

You’re dealing here with a language that is proper to religiuos life. To us, to despise the world, does ont mean that we hate it. Every culture has its language. The religious life also has its language. To us, this concept meant that we reject what the world has to offer to embrace something beyond that. As to being called out of the world for the world, there are founders who do not subscribe to this: Benedict, Francis and Teresa of Avila. You are called out of the world for your salvation and by extension, since we are part of one body, the whole benefits from the spiritual health of the one. For this reason, ministry is accidental to some religious communities, not essential.

I can hear what you are saying. However, we need to be careful about “specialist language” because the problem can be that while the specialists understand what is being said, others are misinterpreting. I think it is important personally to state if I use the term “despise the world” that I am not despising the world in the common understanding of “despise”. I recall being at a meeting where “dialogue” was being regularly referred to and on questioning this, it turned out that there were several understandings of what the word meant. And what was actually happening is that we were talking at cross purposes because we had presumed we all meant the same thing by “dialogue”.

I am not too sure about what you have to say about Benedict, Francis and Teresa of Avila and that vocation is just for the person’s salvation, although it is that too. “A new commandment I give to you that you love one another”. And I think there is a stage in the spiritual journey where one really does sort of fall in love with one’s neighbour and out of love with oneself if I can put it that way. Jesus poured out His whole life and His life blood finally in the love of humanity.

One of the things I have problems with in parishes and even diocese and some religious communites is that they are too inward looking and its all about them and themselves and their members. There is no missionary spirit.

I recall reading the writings of St. Teresa of Avila and her warnings against desiring extra-ordinary phenomena and consolations and as being dangerous. She added that the surest and safest way to Union was through love of neighbour. And if I need to know who is my neighbour, then I can reflect on the Parable of The Good Samaritan. Personal holiness, of course, is never in isolation. The more holy a person becomes, the more good effected in the Body of Christ and in the whole world. We are brothers and sisters in humanity and share a common human nature. The fact of Adam and Eve and their story and the doctrine of original sin - and then the Incarnation of the Second Person of The Blessed Trinity and the “New Adam” in the spiritual order tells us that we are all of us everywhere united in our humanity and human nature and in the spritual order in Sanctifying Grace either already or in the hope of same. Jesus lived and died for the whole of creation. And as St. Paul said - something like “What is all this talk of I am for Paul, or I am for someone else etc.”. We are all for Jesus Christ and that is our call. “Follow Me, I am The Way, The Truth and The Life”.

 

[TiggerS]

To my way of thinking a religious through radical poverty, chastity and obedience to the Rule and superior grow in holiness and towards Unity with God. Reflecting on what Jesus said “how can you say you love God, whom you cannot see, if you do not love your neighbour whom you can see?”, it seems to me that growth in love of God instrinsically means that at the same time one is growing in love of God, one is growing in love of neighbour. The two cannot be separated according to Jesus and His Gospel. And again, if I need to define who is my neighbour, then a prayerful reflection on the Parable of The Good Samaritan says it all.

For religious with an active apostolate in the world, they are called to exercise this apostolate in radical poverty, chastity and obedience etc. as I stated above. But what makes a religious per se is the evangelical counsels as prime at all times, everywhere.

St Therese of Lisieux for example was a strictly enclosed contemplative nun and as she grew in love of God, she not only developed sound loving relationships with her own community but eventually came to an all embracing love of neighbour far beyond the monastic walls which enclosed her. She came to love all that God loves and that to me is an obvious result of loving God. It would be a strange and suspect sort of love to love someone but despise what they loved and cherished - and more, what they made, loved and cherished.

To my way of thinking religious are called out of the world for the world - for the good of The Church and the whole world. The goods of this world are not negatives in the spiritual order, in fact laity are called to use these gifted from God material goods for the true end purpose for which they are gifted to the world. To direct these material goods to their rightful end purpose.

Religious and laity alike are called to reject wordly passions not directed to God, such as greed and avarice, despising others etc. etc. And these “worldly passions” can exist in religious life every bit as much as out here in the world - sometimes indeed they are very subtle and hidden in religious life. Not always present I am saying, just sometimes. And I feel I can say some things about religious life having experienced monastic life.

Some religious never attain holiness and Unity with God though in the state of perfection, while our saints attest that some lay people do attain that goal and if one looks into their lives we see that the road they took was that of poverty, chastity and obedience - i.e. of the spirit. And the living spirit of the evangelical counsels is the object of their radical expression in religious life. That is, to live always in the spirit of poverty, chastity and obedience - and for all the baptized no matter their state in life or vocation.

Again to my way of thinking, we are all called to perfection. We all are called to the one goal: holiness and Unity with God. Religious are called to the actual state of perfection, or radical poverty, chastity and obedience and hence a direct road to holiness and Unity with God ideally. They abandon the usual temptations against the evangelical counsels by an active commitment to abandon the most common occasions of temptations against them. And ideally again, religious should have much to say to us laity, to share with us, about the road to perfection which we laity must also take. Laity are not called to the radical expression of the evangelical counsels; however, they are still called to the evangelical counsels in a spirit of poverty, chastity (non celibate chastity in the case of the married) and obedience to The Church through one’s bishop and parish priest - and any other rightful authority placed over us. St. Paul “all authority comes from God”.

 

[catharina]

I don’t know if I would call it an “us-them” situation, but the Church has always made distinctions between the secular Catholic and the regular Catholic. Regulars, today known as Religious, have always maintained a degree of distance from the secular or lay Catholic world. There was good reason for this.

The first reason was to avoid contamination. The second reason for the separation has to do with autonomy. The third reason for the separation is to preserve community in the religious house. The fourth is to protect women religious from being controlled by males.

Sisters are finding out that the biggest mistake they made after Vatican II was not taking off habits. That may or may not have been a mistake, depending on the community. But opening their lives to the outside world was tragic. They thought that it was the thing to do, because as you say, “We’re all one body.” This may be true, but even in the body, each organ has its place. They are not blended. They cooperate to keep the whole alive. The heart does not interfere in the function of the brain and the brain is not the liver. What the sisters have found is that they took too much advice from the secular Catholic world on how to run their institutions, their community, their finances, educate their young, what their priorities should be, etc. They have paid a price. It’s not the loss of the habit that decimated their numbers. It’s the loss of their freedom. They allowed the world around them to set expectations for them and they adopted those expectations. Whether those people were well meaning Catholics or secularist lay people, the effect was the same. These women found themselves embroiled in a world that was not theirs.

One of the wisest women religious of our time is Mother Teresa. She had setup a group called the Helpers of Mother Teresa. Originally, they were prayer warriors. Gradually, they became involved in fund raising for the Missionaries of Charity. Then they became involved in the financial management of the Missionaries of Charity. Before Mother Teresa knew it, they were having meetings at expensive hotels in NYC, London, Paris and expensive meals and gatherings. These were lay people whom Mother expected to embrace her way of life and her goals. Instead, they were turning her community into a corporation. One day, at a meeting in NYC, Mother got up and dissolved them. This was a big stink, because they were a legal entity. They had become a 501(c)3 organization. Legally, the CEO cannot dissolve a corporation. Mother thumbed her nose at the civil law and dissolved them, closed all the bank accounts, took the money out of NY and back to Inida and left. I believe this was in the 1980s. In any case, this saved her congregation. To this day, the Missioanries of Charity do not allow anyone into their inner world. No one knows how they use their money, how they govern themselves how they manage their homes. Volunteers work with them and for them. They do wonderful work, but they are not part of the community. They are part of the work. This way, these women manage to maintain their autonomy.

They have a male branch of their congregation. The Missionary Brothers of Charity. They have separate consitutions and separate governments. The males are not allowed to know what the females are doing. This protects the sisters from male control.

There should be cooperation in the apostolate, but separation in government, infrastructure, finances, goals, vision, mission and way of life, with the religious free to venture into the secular world as far as their charism and founders intend for them to venture, without being totally absorbed and pulled back to the world they left and without being told by that world how far in they may or may not go.

The Council of Trent very wisely saw the need for this freedom and created the Right of Exemption. This gives religious of Pontifical Right freedom from lay and episcopal influence and control. It put all the authority in the hands of the major superior and the pope. In 1983, Pope John Paul wrote into Canon Law that the laity has a moral obligation to support the apostolic work of religious, but not to control it. This granted the religious the financial support they need without the controls from outside of the community. It provides services to the laity, especially those in great need: children, sick, elderly, unborn, homeless, etc.

There are always going to be two worlds, the secular Catholic and the regular Catholic. They’re like two lungs in one body.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Beautiful, Brother. Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

I have to state that I am not against habits. I am against dictating to religious what to wear. This is an internal decision that requires that the community consider many factors: its tradition, the vision of its founder, its constitutions, its ministry, its culture, and the resources available.

I belong to a community that has a habit. In fact, we have two habits, a pair of slacks, a clerical shirt, a pair of jeans and two work shirts. That’s our wardrobe. When I was in the secular world, my dog had more changes of outfits.

If you look at our habits, they are shabby. We look like spiritual slobs. We don’t get a new one because it has a stain or hole in it. You patch the hole and you live with that pesky stain that you can’t remove. I’m diabetic, so I don’t wear sandals. I’ve been wearing the same pair of shoes for 8 years. We wear our sandals or shoes until they fall apart.

For us, the habit has a very special meaning. It links us to Francis of Assisi. This is important to us. If you have ever been around Franciscans for a week, you’ll notice that not a day goes by when Francis is not mentioned, at least once. I don’t know about other religious communities, but Franciscans have a romance with the Seraphic Father. Even the titles by which we refer to him reflect that: Our Holy Father Francis, the Seraphic Father, the Mirror of Perfection, the Perfect Christian, the Alter Christus or simply Father Francis (he was never a priest).

It’s important to understand this connection between the sons and the father. I think St. Bonaventure says it best in his work The Disciple and the Master. Francis is the perfect disciple; therefore, he becomes the perfect teacher. Bonaventure writes, “Blessed Francis could truly say, ‘Learn from me, for I am truly gentle and humble of heart,’ because he took the Lord’s command to heart and lived according to it.”

The habit connects us to Francis and keeps him present in our daily lives. It reminds us that we are the sons of St. Francis; therefore, we’re called to live the Gospel as he lived it, in absolute obedience, without property, in chastity so as to become one with our brothers.

We don’t pay much attention to the habit. It is what it is. People often like to say that it’s a symbol of penance. We always say, “Not for us it’s not.” Others say that it’s a symbol of poverty. We say, “Not for us it’s not. It’s more expensive than a pair of pants and a t-shirt.” Some say that it’s the presence of the Church in the world. We say, “The Church is in the world, with or without the habit. Every man and woman is called to bring the Church into the world.” Finally, someone will ask, “So what is the habit to you guys?” And we say, “It’s a tool. It anchors us in Francis. It helps us to be anonymous in the fraternity. And it reminds us that we’re brothers to all men, even those whom we never meet.”

Does all of this go away if we don’t wear the habit? No. But the habit makes it easier.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF