Thoughts on traditionalism and the religious

[JReducation]

Romano Amerio addresses religious orders and congregations specifically in his book ‘Iota Unum’ and deals with the matter in quite some depth.

The fundamental points he makes are that:

1)There has been a massive decay of religious life, he states 'The greatest ruin had occured among the Dominicans falling from 10,000 to 6,000, the Capuchins, 16,000 to 12,000, the Jesuits 36,000 to 26,000 and the Salesians 22,000 to 17,000’. (p319) Aside from these statistics he quotes Cardinal Danielou who said 'I think, that there is at present a very grave crisis in religious life and that people should not be talking about a renewal but a decay’ (p320)

2)There have been massive innovations amongst religious congregations, he gives as an example the Salesians whose founder had stated that to move its Centre from Turin to Rome would be the ruin of his work but which nevertheless did so in 1972. (p320) He further points out that 'Stability’ once a fundamental part of many religious orders has become largely sidelined. He speaks of another reforming chapter mentioned in the Obsservatore Romano 'which has removed from the founders constitutions every religious practice…and every form of mortification, and has questioned the value of the vow of obedience by allowing a member the right of conscientious objection’ (p331)

3)The renewal of religious life has to do with ‘*opening up to the world’ * and has little to do with the traditional type of reform in religious orders (P321)

4)That the traditional purpose of religious life ‘to save ones soul’ has been forgotten and instead it has become focused on 'developing the personality of its members in this world and in the service of man’ He references an interview by the Capuchins of the Swiss province in 1982 where they stated that departures from the Rule were in fact new ways of following the rule. 'The doings of Capuchins who came back from the missions, left their communities, dropped any activities properly belonging to religious, said they wanted to set off in search of a new experience of God, went about living the life of vagabonds or hermits, avoided the obligations they had undertaken, followed faith in man as their guiding principle, undertook philanthropic activities and in doing so said they did not mean Catholic activities but activities of men drawn up on the basis of common faith in man, were all held up as praiseworthy’ (p324)

5)He also claims that Religious orders have as a whole during this renewal, become much less mortified (p326)

6)Lastly he also criticises the general undermining of Obedience which has been undermined by the idea that 'authority is worth nothing more than the worth of its arguments’ and the idea of ‘* conscientious objection’* (p328-330)

Of course most of these events were from the 60’s-80’s, I do not know if they still occur or if the book is outdated, but it certainly is worthwhile examining the analysis of a prominent theologian like Romano Amerio.

Some of his points are valid and some reflect his lack of understanding of religious life.

For good theology on religious life read Vita Consacrata by Bl. John Paul II. It’s good theology and its official, not a theologian’s opinion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[jmj1984]

This is not an approved Franciscan site. Alexis Bugnolo is not a member of the Franciscan family. He operate independently. He even says so on his site. What they did here was to copy and paste some writings from another site.

This is from the constitutions of the Franciscan Renewal

Art 38 The friars will always reside in areas noted for poverty. If the neighborhood changes due to social or economic development which displaces the poor, the friars must find residence in another poor area. The friary is then to be returned to its rightful owner, taking into account the owner’s needs and rights. The friaries of our community should be poor, simple and austere. They should have no look of luxury, nor contain those conveniences commonly sought after by society.

Franciscan Renewal

Here is a young mendicant congregation. They only live and serve among the poor. Missionaries of the Poor

**Our Purpose

The purpose of our Institute is to fulfill Christ’s desire to be present in this world, to have Him use us within His Mystical Body in order to accomplish His life and work among the poor**. We do this through

A life of prayer which makes us aware of God’s special love, His special favor and plan for us;
A life of love of the members in our religious community,
A life of service of the poor;
A life of loyalty and dedicated service in the building up of our Roman Catholic Church.

Br

I’m aware of all that, Br Alexis was of course given permission to do what he did, my point was and remains that it is not as if stricter adherence to the rule (going back to the intentions of the founders) is being promoted.

 

[jmj1984]

Some of his points are valid and some reflect his lack of understanding of religious life.

For good theology on religious life read Vita Consacrata by Bl. John Paul II. It’s good theology and its official, not a theologian’s opinion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Br

You do of course know that this theologian references all his work meticulously, with reference to papal teaching, other theologians, official records, Doctors of the Church and saints.

I will read Vita Consacrata by Bl John Paul II, but just because it is official does not mean it is automatically more right or true than a theologians opinion. Aside from that it is not going to address the issues Romano Amerio has raised, but state Bl John Paul II’s teaching on the matter.

 

[jmj1984]

The Holy Spirit reveals his wishes to the founders and the Church approves. For example, Bl. Mother Teresa, the Church said that there was no need for a new congregation in India. Mother presented that this was not her idea, that Christ has told he to do this and that he wanted an Indian congregation to spread around the world. The matter was sent to the Holy See. The Holy See responded that though this was against Church law, it could not deny the request, even though it did not know why not. Those sisters are not allowed to minister to middle class.

The Friars of the Renewal had a similar experience. Six of them heard the same voice, to return to the roots. They applied to the General Minister of the Capuchin Franciscans. He too said that the request was unusual, but he could not deny it. The request was granted. They stepped out into the South Bronx. They took the Capuchin Franciscan constitutions of 1516. The constitutions say that the friars must pick up and leave when the local people rise to a level of sustainability and the friars are not to minister in parishes, because this is the proper domain of secular priests, not friars, priests or not. The same happened with the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance, the Franciscans of Peace and is happening all around the globe. The poverty is very strict. Friars sleep on floors instead of beds. They don’t have medical insurance. They do not work in parishes or schools, so they have no salary. They live off of donations from the laity. But they never go hungry. The Franciscans of the Renewal travel around the world as do the Missionaries of Charity.

Now, what is happening is that the larger communities are seeing that it’s possible and are revising their constitutions to fit the rule. Remember, you cannot change the rule. The rule is absolute until the Second Coming. Francis does not allow the rule to be changed. If anyone attempts to change the rule he is to be excommunicated. What happened was that questions arose that Francis did not anticipate. Constitutions had to be written to address those questions. Today, what Bl. John Paul said was that those constitutions have to be consistent with the rule. If they are not, then they have to be revised in order to fit the rule.

Not all of the mendicant orders were founded as clerical orders. For example, the Servites, Trinitarians and Franciscans are not orders of clerics. We have clergymen who enter the order to be brothers. Just as Cistercians enter the order to be brothers. There are several orders like that. Priests are admitted provided that they serve the Church according to the mind of the founder.

.

Br

Thanks for that info, but the practical issues I raised remain. And when I said clergy, I meant to include all religious, apologies if that wasn’t clear.

 

[JReducation]

Br

I’m aware of all that, Br Alexis was of course given permission to do what he did, my point was and remains that it is not as if stricter adherence to the rule (going back to the intentions of the founders) is being promoted.

It is being promoted. Read that segment of those constitutions or go back and read the entire constitution of the renewal. That’s just one renewal community. They were the first in the USA. From them, others have followed with similar and even stricter constitutions.

We have to make room in the Church for this, because this has always been part of the life of the Church. That’s the point of this whole thread.

You said that the religious communities cannot move out of middle class neighborhood. I’m trying to paraphrase what you said. I’m pointing out that for many, it’s become a matter of law and the Church has approved such law.

No community can act on a constitution, without it being approved by the Church. Remember that. So if the constitution says that you will move out, if the poor are displaced, you can count your bottom dollar that the Holy See approved it.

That’s my point here. However, we don’t want to debate that all they way 'til Christmas, because that’s not the point of the thread. The point is that it is being done and it is approved by the Holy See. There are many such communities, older and younger ones.

The good news, is that the number of secular seminarians is on the rise. Some secular seminaries have had to find additional space. With the tightening of religious constitutions and declericalization, where you don’t automatically get ordained, but the community decides if it needs another priest, many young men are realizing that they are not called to the religious life, because this type of asceticism is not for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

Br

Thanks for that info, but the practical issues I raised remain. And when I said clergy, I meant to include all religious, apologies if that wasn’t clear.

Although there may be some clergy who are religious, not all religious are clergy. In the case of the Franciscans, they place an emphasis on the fraternal, on fellowship. The poverty is also collective. You can clearly see this with the Friars of the Renewal. You can’t treat the Franciscans as clergy due to everyone being equal. To borrow a phrase from CM Punk, Francis was the Voice of the Voiceless. In the USA, there are still poor folk who have no voice. Franciscans give them a voice through their work, and they preach through said work. This is in their Rule, and the Rule can’t change. This isn’t a custom or a practice, you can think of the Rule as being like dogma.

I believe the jist of what Brother JR is trying to say is if you take Franciscans away from the poor, they are no longer Franciscan. They lose that heart of Francis.

The Dominicans on the other hand, the focus is on individual poverty. You can’t expect the Order of Preachers to preach and teach without knowledge, so collectively they will own some possessions. During Dominic’s time they had books, a lot of books. Nowadays you’ll find a computer with the Internet at the Priory.

As Brother JR said, the Order of Preachers can suspend their constitutions for their primary charism. If a Dominican is on the road often, he might be relieved from individual poverty so that he can perform his duties better. Example; now you can have e-books and what not on a Kindle. The General Superior can let the guy whose on the road all the time have a Kindle or laptop so he doesn’t need to carry around a small library with of books and notes.

 

[choliks]

Although there may be some clergy who are religious, not all religious are clergy. In the case of the Franciscans, they place an emphasis on the fraternal, on fellowship. The poverty is also collective. You can clearly see this with the Friars of the Renewal. You can’t treat the Franciscans as clergy due to everyone being equal. To borrow a phrase from CM Punk, Francis was the Voice of the Voiceless. In the USA, there are still poor folk who have no voice. Franciscans give them a voice through their work, and they preach through said work. This is in their Rule, and the Rule can’t change. This isn’t a custom or a practice, you can think of the Rule as being like dogma.

I believe the jist of what Brother JR is trying to say is if you take Franciscans away from the poor, they are no longer Franciscan. They lose that heart of Francis.

The Dominicans on the other hand, the focus is on individual poverty. You can’t expect the Order of Preachers to preach and teach without knowledge, so collectively they will own some possessions. During Dominic’s time they had books, a lot of books. Nowadays you’ll find a computer with the Internet at the Priory.

As Brother JR said, the Order of Preachers can suspend their constitutions for their primary charism. If a Dominican is on the road often, he might be relieved from individual poverty so that he can perform his duties better. Example; now you can have e-books and what not on a Kindle. The General Superior can let the guy whose on the road all the time have a Kindle or laptop so he doesn’t need to carry around a small library with of books and notes.

In short… take away the charisms of the Religious and they cease to be who they are. If this happens, the Church becomes crippled.

 

[JReducation]

Although there may be some clergy who are religious, not all religious are clergy. In the case of the Franciscans, they place an emphasis on the fraternal, on fellowship. The poverty is also collective. You can clearly see this with the Friars of the Renewal. You can’t treat the Franciscans as clergy due to everyone being equal. To borrow a phrase from CM Punk, Francis was the Voice of the Voiceless. In the USA, there are still poor folk who have no voice. Franciscans give them a voice through their work, and they preach through said work. This is in their Rule, and the Rule can’t change. This isn’t a custom or a practice, you can think of the Rule as being like dogma.

I believe the jist of what Brother JR is trying to say is if you take Franciscans away from the poor, they are no longer Franciscan. They lose that heart of Francis.

The Dominicans on the other hand, the focus is on individual poverty. You can’t expect the Order of Preachers to preach and teach without knowledge, so collectively they will own some possessions. During Dominic’s time they had books, a lot of books. Nowadays you’ll find a computer with the Internet at the Priory.

As Brother JR said, the Order of Preachers can suspend their constitutions for their primary charism. If a Dominican is on the road often, he might be relieved from individual poverty so that he can perform his duties better. Example; now you can have e-books and what not on a Kindle. The General Superior can let the guy whose on the road all the time have a Kindle or laptop so he doesn’t need to carry around a small library with of books and notes.

I believe that you have the right of it. The Order of Preachers were individually poor, but they were never corporately poor. The lived in priories with large libraries. They had large chapels with choirs and they were allowed to have horses to get around.

Franciscans and Servites lived in fraternities that were small, without libraries and no choir to chant the office. They were not allowed to have horses to travel. They walked or hitchhiked. Today, in cities, the friars still don’t own cars. They take buses or trains. They don’t have choirs for the celebration of the Divine Office. The Divine Office is recited while sitting in chairs or walking down the street in twos. For Francis, the Divine Office was a canonical requirement that had to be met, not an essential part of the life of a friar. Prayer or praise and worship, recollection, Lectio Divina were the preferred forms of prayer. That’s why he wrote many prayers of praise and worship. It was not until the reign of Bonaventure that the Divine Office actually takes off among Franciscans, because Bonaventure took the Benedictine Breviary (the only one around then) and adapted it by simplifying it. This way the friars did not have to chant and they distributed the 150 psalms over a four-week period, instead of one week.

The Servites wanted to imitate the Fanciscans. They asked to live in a hut next to them. During their first five years or so, they have a revelation that they were to adopt the Rule of Augustine, not Francis and they were to serve Our Lady. They became the Friars Servants of Mary. They adopted a more monastic life, but kept the fraternal life of the Franciscans, never becoming an order of priests, but always having what we call brother-priests or friar-priests or clerical friars.

All of these rich charisms are part of Catholic Tradition. It does not begin and end with the EF. The mass is the center of the faith, but the faith is expressed and disseminated by these orders. Later, we would see the birth of the congregations, which has not been touched in this thread. They are very different from orders.

It is also important to note the the Third Orders were not always the same as the First Orders. For example, among the Dominicans, the Third Order follows the same rule and spirituality as the friars. Among Franciscans, this has never been the case. Francis gave them their own rule, government, constitutions and mission. They are not mendicants. They are not even part of the mendicant tradition. They are an order of penitents. They and the friars and the nuns have a common father, but not a common mission or way of life. Francis wrote four rules for four different ways of life: mendicants, monastic, hermit and penitent.

The other family that I know that has such a distinction is the Jesuit Family. They have the solemn professed and the simple professed. They are not the same, but both are Jesuits.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

In short… take away the charisms of the Religious and they cease to be who they are. If this happens, the Church becomes crippled.

Bingo!

This is something that Bl. John Paul defended tooth and nail. Pope Benedict has as well.

The problem with Amerio’s statements on religious life is that he speaks not as a religious or as a founder, but as a philosophical analyst. Religious life has always sprouted out of very spontaneous and creative movements. If you try to box it in, you kill it. That was the mistake made by some religious communities and that is why they are dying. They over intellectualized religious life and talked themselves to their graves. You can’t take the Holy Spirit, sit him down and give him a bunch philosophical or sociological rules.

Amerio tries to do that in order to pull to the right. The other tried to do it to pull to the left. Neither works well. The SSPX pulled so hard to the right that they pulled themselves right out the door. Those communities that renewed themselves, without recovering the charism and vision of their founders, pulled themselves into extinction cause by relativism.

Religious life is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Each religious family has walks down a different path toward the perfection of charity, which is how the religious saves his soul and contributes to the salvation of the world.

Opus Dei rides Cadillac, Jesuits ride Porsche, Dominicans use Fords and Franciscans come on bikes.

Don’t ever try to make them all look alike or function the same way, you’ll hurt the Church and yourself. Even though I’m not a Jesuit, I benefit from the graces that they earn through their fidelity to their vision and mission. That’s how the Communion of Saints works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

It is being promoted. Read that segment of those constitutions or go back and read the entire constitution of the renewal. That’s just one renewal community. They were the first in the USA. From them, others have followed with similar and even stricter constitutions.

We have to make room in the Church for this, because this has always been part of the life of the Church. That’s the point of this whole thread.

You said that the religious communities cannot move out of middle class neighborhood. I’m trying to paraphrase what you said. I’m pointing out that for many, it’s become a matter of law and the Church has approved such law.

No community can act on a constitution, without it being approved by the Church. Remember that. So if the constitution says that you will move out, if the poor are displaced, you can count your bottom dollar that the Holy See approved it.

That’s my point here. However, we don’t want to debate that all they way 'til Christmas, because that’s not the point of the thread. The point is that it is being done and it is approved by the Holy See. There are many such communities, older and younger ones.

The good news, is that the number of secular seminarians is on the rise. Some secular seminaries have had to find additional space. With the tightening of religious constitutions and declericalization, where you don’t automatically get ordained, but the community decides if it needs another priest, many young men are realizing that they are not called to the religious life, because this type of asceticism is not for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br

Perhaps but they are an isolated occurrences, as Romano Amerio and others have made clear the trend amongst religious over the last 40 or 50 years has to be have a laxer not a stricter observation of the rule or to put it another way laxer not stricter constitutions.

I also never said orders couldn’t move out, I merely couldn’t believe such a thing and questioned its wisdom, I still do.

 

[jmj1984]

Bingo!

This is something that Bl. John Paul defended tooth and nail. Pope Benedict has as well.

The problem with Amerio’s statements on religious life is that he speaks not as a religious or as a founder, but as a philosophical analyst. Religious life has always sprouted out of very spontaneous and creative movements. If you try to box it in, you kill it. That was the mistake made by some religious communities and that is why they are dying. They over intellectualized religious life and talked themselves to their graves. You can’t take the Holy Spirit, sit him down and give him a bunch philosophical or sociological rules.

Amerio tries to do that in order to pull to the right. The other tried to do it to pull to the left. Neither works well. The SSPX pulled so hard to the right that they pulled themselves right out the door. Those communities that renewed themselves, without recovering the charism and vision of their founders, pulled themselves into extinction cause by relativism.

Religious life is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Each religious family has walks down a different path toward the perfection of charity, which is how the religious saves his soul and contributes to the salvation of the world.

Br

To be honest I’m not sure you’re either understanding or addressing any of the points Romano Amerio has made.

You seem to be saying that ‘The problem with Romano Amerio is that he’s not a religious and therefore he can’t be accurate…’, that doesn’t seem like an entirely reasonable statement. One doesn’t have to belong to a certain class in order to give an accurate portrayal of it, especially not when one meticulously cites everything from the OR, the Pope, meetings of the superiors of religious etc…

I cannot see Romano Amerio saying anything about spontaneity, rather he is making the point that there is a common thread behind all religious life, just as there is one between the laity and the clergy. He is certainly not boxing anyone in but merely pointing out certain salient facts, facts he references extensively.

I suspect Romano Amerio would point out that the trend among religious is not to return to a stricter observance, that in fact very few religious congregations or orders have done anything like this, but rather that the trend is to become more lax, open up to the world and embrace an entirely new philosphy. That is what he blames for the death of religious congregations, a movement post 1960’s to renew according to the intentions of V2 that in fact had nothing to do with the intentions of the founder.

 

[Melchior_1]

Br

Perhaps but they are an isolated occurrences, as Romano Amerio and others have made clear the trend amongst religious over the last 40 or 50 years has to be have a laxer not a stricter observation of the rule or to put it another way laxer not stricter constitutions.

I also never said orders couldn’t move out, I merely couldn’t believe such a thing and questioned its wisdom, I still do.

An honest question; why do you want a group of people who were set up to work with the poor to stop working with the poor? They’re called the Poor Claires, not the middle-class Claires.

 

[jwinch2]

I believe that you have the right of it. The Order of Preachers were individually poor, but they were never corporately poor. The lived in priories with large libraries. They had large chapels with choirs and they were allowed to have horses to get around.

[interruption]

According to the multiple bio’s of Saint Dominic that I have the Friars were to walk everywhere. In addition, the libraries came much later down the road. My understanding was that they were in places where the priories were attached to universities. The original priories were little more than shacks added on to Churches donated to them by the Holy Father or the local Bishop and consisted of one room to eat in and a number of 4x6’ cells to sleep in with no doors. I’m not sure if or when horses, libraries, larger priories, etc. came into the scene but they were not there in the beginning with Dominic and his original sons and daughters, at least from everything I can tell.

The one thing I find evidence to agree with is books. Education was important and so books were allowed, though those were donated as well rather than purchased. Even then, it wasn’t a ton of them as they would be limited to what they could have carried while walking. The original sons of Dominic did not stay in one place for very long. In fact, as soon as they were founded, he sent them out in pairs. Almost as soon as another priory was founded, they were then split up an sent out. This is one of the reasons the order grew so rapidly in the initial years, no one stayed put! In addition, on more than one occasion, Dominic himself sold his books to help the needy. His sons did the same. The tradition of having books donated seems to have continued to this day. I have seen a couple of Friars who have preaching blogs with a link where you can donate books to them or the priory. One of them who is moving back from Rome to New Orleans was recently lamenting the fact that he has to give all the books he accumulated during his time there, away.

[/interruption]

Peace,

 

[jmj1984]

An honest question; why do you want a group of people who were set up to work with the poor to stop working with the poor? They’re called the Poor Claires, not the middle-class Claires.

Who said anything about stopping working with the poor?

I objected to them solely working with the poor and pointed out the serious problems with defining what poor is.

Besides which the poor claires may just as well have been called poor because they were poor not because their sole mission was to work with the poor.

 

[jwinch2]

but merely pointing out certain salient facts, facts he references extensively.

Emphasis mine.

You have made this or a similar statement multiple times now. Just for clarification, it is quite possible to reference extensively and still come to the wrong conclusion. In my field as a professor in the biological and physical sciences, I see this all the time. People write a review article, text, etc. and cite sources like crazy. However, their understanding of the underlying mechanisms are poor and thus, they develop poor conclusions and/or misinterpret the data as a result. Proper citation does not in anyway prevent erroneous conclusions.

As a personal testament to this, my own research has been cited improperly on multiple occasions.

 

[jwinch2]

Who said anything about stopping working with the poor?

I objected to them solely working with the poor and pointed out the serious problems with defining what poor is.

Besides which the poor claires may just as well have been called poor because they were poor not because their sole mission was to work with the poor.

And yet this is not the case. They have a rule given to them that they are to follow. I’m sure you are not suggesting that a consecrated religious to violate their rule and their charism. There are other orders who’s mission is to work with other groups. There is no need to ask those whose calling is the poor to change. In fact, in the case of Franciscans, asking them to do so is incredibly wrong. In many cases, you may be asking them to commit mortal sin. Their rule and charism are a revelation from God and they took solemn vows to follow them. As for who decides who is poor or not, I imagine that they do.

The Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist for example, has the specific aim of working teaching middle class children. In addition, the Dominican Friars are called to evangelize all socio economic groups while maintaining poorness in their personal lives. I’m sure there are others, but those are the first that come to mind.

 

[Melchior_1]

One of the ways I knew the Dominicans were for me was exactly that; I have been doing youth ministry for eight years now, and that spans all classes. I felt (and still feel) that a part of my vocation is to work in that fashion.

But the Franciscans, they are called to work with the least of His brothers. If the call to go back to the charisms and Rule of the founder never happens, the Franciscans would cease to exist, except in name only (or not even).

 

[jmj1984]

Emphasis mine.

You have made this or a similar statement multiple times now. Just for clarification, it is quite possible to reference extensively and still come to the wrong conclusion. In my field as a professor in the biological and physical sciences, I see this all the time. People write a review article, text, etc. and cite sources like crazy. However, their understanding of the underlying mechanisms are poor and thus, they develop poor conclusions and/or misinterpret the data as a result. Proper citation does not in anyway prevent erroneous conclusions.

As a personal testament to this, my own research has been cited improperly on multiple occasions.

True, but one must examine the facts to see if they match up to the conclusion or not. I am sure you are not accussing Romano Amerio of having a poor understanding of what he is writing about? That would be quite at odds with the reviews for the book which have generally lauded it and its inherent quality.

 

[jmj1984]

And yet this is not the case. They have a rule given to them that they are to follow. I’m sure you are not suggesting that a consecrated religious to violate their rule and their charism. There are other orders who’s mission is to work with other groups. There is no need to ask those whose calling is the poor to change. In fact, in the case of Franciscans, asking them to do so is incredibly wrong. In many cases, you may be asking them to commit mortal sin. Their rule and charism are a revelation from God and they took solemn vows to follow them. As for who decides who is poor or not, I imagine that they do.

The Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist for example, has the specific aim of working teaching middle class children. In addition, the Dominican Friars are called to evangelize all socio economic groups while maintaining poorness in their personal lives. I’m sure there are others, but those are the first that come to mind.

Where did I ever ask them to violate their rule? Far be it from me or anyone to say such a thing. I simply questioned the wisdom of working merely with a particular socio-economic class, thats entirely fair comment.

On the other hand is this written into their rules or their constitutions? Of course they can violate neither but whereas one can change the other cannot.

 

[Melchior_1]

Where did I ever ask them to violate their rule? Far be it from me or anyone to say such a thing. I simply questioned the wisdom of working merely with a particular socio-economic class, thats entirely fair comment.

On the other hand is this written into their rules or their constitutions? Of course they can violate neither but whereas one can change the other cannot.

Brother JR can correct me if I’m wrong, but for Franciscans it’s in the Rule. It cannot be changed.