What specifically caused the mass exodus from religious orders after Vatican ll?

[Gardenman]

We all know about how such a large number of religious left their communities after Vatican ll…but what specifically was the reason? Undoubtedly there were many, but are there any reasons that seemed “typical” of why so many left?

I don’t know any former priests or nuns, etc. but many that I did know are now “gone” and I find that very sad.

I’ve never read any biographies of former religious…I suppose I should.

 

[po18guy]

We all know about how such a large number of religious left their communities after Vatican ll…but what specifically was the reason? Undoubtedly there were many, but are there any reasons that seemed “typical” of why so many left?

I don’t know any former priests or nuns, etc. but many that I did know are now “gone” and I find that very sad.

I’ve never read any biographies of former religious…I suppose I should.

Vatican II (V2) was a response to cultural and societal change in the world. As such, V2 did not necessarily cause anything by itself. People’s reactions to it caused the problems. Recall that the early 60s were the years of the sexual revolution. Combine this with the increase in general income and its lifestyle, the growth of television viewing, as well as multiple other changes in society and you can see what problems the Vatican was confronting. It is perhaps more accurate to say that major cultural changes brought about the loss of vocations and made V2 necessary.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Cloisters]

We all know about how such a large number of religious left their communities after Vatican ll…but what specifically was the reason? Undoubtedly there were many, but are there any reasons that seemed “typical” of why so many left?

I don’t know any former priests or nuns, etc. but many that I did know are now “gone” and I find that very sad.

I’ve never read any biographies of former religious…I suppose I should.

We run the “Nearly Nun Club” yahoo group, which was primarily for those of us who had been behind cloister walls for some amount of time (over 24 hours), but had to leave for whatever reason.

Part of our membership are those who left in the wake of Vatican II, and some of the stories, IMHO, need to be handed over to someone to be made into some kind of musical or something.

I gave them the prompt of: “You were sitting there in your habit, praying in Latin, attending the Latin Mass, then. . .”

We had a variety of responses.

One had been given the opportunity to choose her name, and when she kept the one she had been given, her superior turned demonic on her.

Another was called up to the front of the refectory and was asked to open a package. New jammies–only they were more appropriate for a married woman.

Some said that the Mass was changed first, then the changes to the habit, then the community life they knew and loved was changed to living in smaller communities out in the world. They were given the option of daily Mass, instead of it being required.

The habit, however, brought about the most virulent of the fighting. Sisters who chose to keep wearing it had their rights violated. A well-known priest-psychologist testifies to the fact that he has received many, many letters asking his help because these “liberated” sisters had violated the older sisters’ rights.

Vatican II had some good things to offer, but the documents were very vague in some respects, particularly when the Church told the sisters, “Go shopping.” Now, they’re having an American-born Sister in modified habit make a visitation of the American convents. Believe me, I’ve waited years for this to happen.

The problems with American convents is documented in Ann Carey’s book, “Sisters in Crisis.”

As I said above, Vatican II had some good things, but the documents were grossly misinterpreted by charlatans who had their own agendas, and the poor have suffered for it. Part of the American healthcare crisis is due to so many Catholic institutions being shut down because of the radical changes, and the sisters leaving in droves.

HTH.

Blessings,
Cloisters

 

[nunsense]

The documents of the Second Vatican Council were often interpreted according to individual agendas, and their true meaning and intentions were lost in the race to “change with the times”. Just as parishioners were often led astray by well meaning but misguided priests who told them such things as “use your own conscience” with regard to topics such as birth control, religious were also confused about the directions they were being given in their own communities. The impact on cloistered communities was less because they took decades to review and renew their constitutions, but even in the cloister there was confusion about how to participate in renewal without losing their essential charisms.

For the active communities, the changes came about “too much, too soon” and in most cases, the Council documents were used as a license to experiment with almost anything, rather than as a guideline to help renew communities and return to the charism of their founders.

The fault was not in the documents of the Council but in their interpretation and implementation. When we go back and read the documents today, we see that so much was taken out of context or interpreted in ways that were definitely in opposition to the original intention of the Council.

In those communities where changes were put into place quickly, some religious felt as if everything they cherished was being torn away from them, and when they resisted, they were made to feel as if they were “old fashioned” and out of touch with the times.

Suddenly religious were being told to “get in touch with their feelings” and to seek “personal fulfilment” and psychologists were brought into communities to help them identify their own needs and wants. This particular step led to the disintegration of many communities because it set up internal conflicts between “self-fulfilment” and “self-sacrifice”. The whole reason and purpose for religious life (a life of self-giving service to God) became a stumbling block for many.

It was a terrifically difficult time for most active communities, and it is not surprising that many left during this time. But just as a pendulum swings to one side, it also has to return back again from where it came, although not as far this time. I see a resurgence of interest in religious life in the Church now, and this is a good thing, especially as the discerners today are definitely making their decisions in a more well-informed way. There are a variety of expressions of religious life now, and one can evaluate a community based on their own understanding and affinities (for such things as habit/no habit). Discerners now seem able to see a relationship between self-sacrifice and self-fulfilment (similar to the self-giving between a man and woman in marriage).

Pope John XXIII said he wanted to open the window and let the fresh air in, and sometimes this causes a lot of dust to fly and things in a room to be disturbed - but eventually it all settles down again. Change is often painful, but not all change is bad. In hindsight, it appears that things all moved too fast but it did wake us all up and brought attention to religious life and the liturgy and there is probably a greater awareness of these things today than there was before the Council. The young people today seem very knowledgeable about issues within the Church, and they are making well-informed choices in their discernment. This is a good thing.

 

[Joannm]

Pope John XXIII said he wanted to open the window and let the fresh air in, and sometimes this causes a lot of dust to fly and things in a room to be disturbed - but eventually it all settles down again. Change is often painful, but not all change is bad. In hindsight, it appears that things all moved too fast but it did wake us all up and brought attention to religious life and the liturgy and there is probably a greater awareness of these things today than there was before the Council. The young people today seem very knowledgeable about issues within the Church, and they are making well-informed choices in their discernment. This is a good thing.

I really like this analogy of dust settling. What I think the good going on now is that there is a variety of ways people could enter religious life…cloistered, active in the world, full habits, semi habits, no habits, There seems to be something for everyone and no one way is the “right” way. In Church history there were communities of sisters who wanted to live in the world, spreading the Gospel and working with the poor, however they were forced to go live in convents. Vatican II offered some freedom for women who chose to serve God in consecrated life but did not want to live within cloistered walls. I recall the great pain an older sister friend of mine expresed at not being allowed to go visit her dying father or attend the wedding of her sister. Was that a better way of life?

 

[RobbyS]

We run the “Nearly Nun Club” yahoo group, which was primarily for those of us who had been behind cloister walls for some amount of time (over 24 hours), but had to leave for whatever reason.

Part of our membership are those who left in the wake of Vatican II, and some of the stories, IMHO, need to be handed over to someone to be made into some kind of musical or something.

I gave them the prompt of: “You were sitting there in your habit, praying in Latin, attending the Latin Mass, then. . .”

We had a variety of responses.

One had been given the opportunity to choose her name, and when she kept the one she had been given, her superior turned demonic on her.

Another was called up to the front of the refectory and was asked to open a package. New jammies–only they were more appropriate for a married woman.

Some said that the Mass was changed first, then the changes to the habit, then the community life they knew and loved was changed to living in smaller communities out in the world. They were given the option of daily Mass, instead of it being required.

The habit, however, brought about the most virulent of the fighting. Sisters who chose to keep wearing it had their rights violated. A well-known priest-psychologist testifies to the fact that he has received many, many letters asking his help because these “liberated” sisters had violated the older sisters’ rights.

Vatican II had some good things to offer, but the documents were very vague in some respects, particularly when the Church told the sisters, “Go shopping.” Now, they’re having an American-born Sister in modified habit make a visitation of the American convents. Believe me, I’ve waited years for this to happen.

The problems with American convents is documented in Ann Carey’s book, “Sisters in Crisis.”

As I said above, Vatican II had some good things, but the documents were grossly misinterpreted by charlatans who had their own agendas, and the poor have suffered for it. Part of the American healthcare crisis is due to so many Catholic institutions being shut down because of the radical changes, and the sisters leaving in droves.

HTH.

Blessings,
Cloisters

It should be remembered that the same thing happened during the Protestant Reformation, which suggests that some radical activists took over the orders. The sisters were led to believe that their whole vocation was a sham, that the devotional life of their communities was “medieval” and not appropriate to the times, that they were simple repressed women who needed to open themselves to modern ways. But my guess is that the radicals among them were naive women who had been exposed to “enlightened” teachings by certain theologians, men and women, who were , in fact, apostates not only to Catholicism but any form of traditional Christianity.

 

[John_Lavelle]

the pendulum swings.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s the Vatican II decree on religious life:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_perfectae-caritatis_en.html

Almost all of the stuff that went on that caused sisters to leave is contrary to the actual decree–none of it is commanded by it.

 

[bilop]

In a sentence?

A small group of modernist heretics took over many order through politcal action and used psychobabble to convince their brothers and sisters to abandon their charisms, rules, and faith.

Once a sister became simply a leftist social worker who couldn’t date, why would any sane woman stay?

Traditional orders have no issue attracting vocations. The call to religious life is and was always there. The leaders of these orders just perverted religious life.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

In a sentence?

A small group of modernist heretics took over many order through politcal action and used psychobabble to convince their brothers and sisters to abandon their charisms, rules, and faith.

Once a sister became simply a leftist social worker who couldn’t date, why would any sane woman stay?

Traditional orders have no issue attracting vocations. The call to religious life is and was always there. The leaders of these orders just perverted religious life.

God Bless

V2 seems to have become the 20th century’s Catholic whipping boy. And those whom it was partially meant to address were also part of its poor implementation. So, what’s to wonder about?

 

[bilop]

V2 seems to have become the 20th century’s Catholic whipping boy. And those whom it was partially meant to address were also part of its poor implementation. So, what’s to wonder about?

I didn’t blame V2. I didn’t mention it at all. It was the modernists who distorted the message of V2.

However, I do think it was imprudent to call a Council in such a time of turmoil, especially when there was no doctrinal issue that needed addressing.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

I didn’t blame V2. I didn’t mention it at all.

Sorry that my comment gave that impression. That was not my intent at all.

It was the modernists who distorted the message of V2.

And it is precisely the modernists who will ruin the faith if allowed to.

However, I do think it was imprudent to call a Council in such a time of turmoil, especially when there was no doctrinal issue that needed addressing.

In retrospect, it would have occurred sooner or later, and perhaps sooner may prove to the be the best. This is certainly the subject of much debate, and likely will be until our Lord returns.

 

[buffalo]

I heard a Priest say the around that time the clergy and religious got very busy in society. When asked by people “Since you are so busy with your ministry, when do you have time to pray?”

They answered “Our work is our prayer”.

The Priest said prayer is necessary to stay faithful. Bottom-line - lack of prayer. I thought this was a remarkable insight.

 

[Aramis]

Another issue was a series of popes more willing than their predecessors to release religious from final vows. (And also to laicize priests.)

In the particular cases I can think of, the brothers left their order to get married. Brother Anthony is parent of 2, both in college or beyond.

Brother Joe was, last I heard, also still with his wife, active in lay ministries.

In both cases, their particular charisms, and that they were friars and not monastics, lead them both to working with the women whom they would leave the order for. They married these women, and have had fulfilling secular lives.

In another couple cases, men left their orders to become diocesan clerics. One, a very devout man, was assigned far from any members of his order while on loan to a diocese… he was given the choice to return to the monastery, or to leave the order and incardinate in the diocese; he chose the latter.

Another, a Dominican, developed a strong attachement to a particular place; his kin had moved there as well. He received permission to incardinate in the local diocese. After many years, he returned to his order.

Still another was asked to become a bishop’s personal assistant, and is a diocesan monastic now, rather than an ordered monastic.

There are many reasons.

The biggest, tho’, is a change in society that has reduced the number of catholic men and women willing to consider such a life.

 

[po18guy]

The biggest, tho’, is a change in society that has reduced the number of catholic men and women willing to consider such a life.

Bingo!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m no expert at all. I only know those bits and pieces that I heard various ones say and that I heard my children say when they were in Catholic schools.

It seems to me that sometime in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a kind of extreme “social consciousness” swept through this society. It was a sort of “Liberation Theology Lite”. The secular society was toying with Marxism and revolutionary romanticism; all “for the poor” of course; “for the oppressed”. A version of it swept through the convents, and through some religious orders of men too…I went to a Jesuit college during it. All of a sudden there was a widespread disdain for traditional roles, which were deemed “irrelevant” and “not important”, even “regressive”. “Teaching the children of the rich” was certainly one of those disdained vocations, notwithstanding that students in Catholic schools really didn’t qualify as “the rich”. Prayer was considered by many to be “egocentric” and “isolating”, and many rejected it in favor of “encounter”; a kind of emotional self-revelatory exercise that had many forms. I remember priests and nuns alike jumping the fence in whole or in part, to work in the ghettoes or in drug rehab places. Things like that. It had a good aspect to it, but it had no structure to it. Discipline was considered retrograde and oppressive. The thing was, too, that in the U.S. there just weren’t all that many worthwhile revolutionary causes.

The religious life, as with the priestly life, is a major challenge. It requires a great deal of discipline. Discipline of self, firm guidance from the community leaders. It was precisely this discipline, it seemed to me, that was thrown away. As soon as it dissolved, it seemed religious flew off in all directions…not just geographically, but in a religious sense as well.

At a point, it seemed that the ego was elevated beyond what religious life could really bear. In my opinion (though many would vehemently disagree) the proliferation of “ministries” we see among the laity are an outgrowth of all that. First of all, because the evaporation of religious orders left a vacuum. But secondly, the “ministry” thing really originated among the religious orders of women who often resented what they felt was “patriarchalism” or “oppression of women” because the Church would not ordain them. Seemed like there was a time when virtually every nun one met was a “minister” of some kind or other.

At bottom, I think, it really was the exaltation of the self that caused it all, and that was more a societal development than anything else, that was allowed into the religious orders because of the confusion that followed VII; a confusion that was deliberately fostered by some churchmen and theologians in order to justify their own wilfullness.

 

[Bobbie]

Speaking from my own personal experience:

I entered the convent (in England) in October 1969 at the age of 17. Young as I was I had always felt a strong pull towards the Religious Life. After leaving school at the age of 16 I had worked for the General Post Office for about 15 months and had been a member of The Young Christian Workers. Neither at school nor at Mass on Sundays had there been any feedback about what was happening in Rome. I had always had a strong faith , a sense of vocation and a magnetic pull towards the Religious Life (indeed I still do!)
In those days there was little or no talk about voluntary work over-seas etc; I thought long and hard about whether I should join a missionary or contemplative order and accepted an invitation to visit the Mother House of an active Apostolic Community.
I immediately felt at home but had to convince my family that I was doing the right thing. I spent six months as a postulant, plus a further 16 months as a novice , ( this time almost fully enclosed and the “Rule” was fairly strict), then five years under vows as a junior professed sister, during which time I did general parish work, worked in a home for boys with profound needs - then unfortunately termed “educationally sub-normal”, plus I worked with homeless people and those who had drug and alchohol dependencies. I then completed Teacher Training.
By the time I approached making final vows community life had been turned up-side down - Many older fully-professed Sisters, who should have been role-models, were leaving in droves. It seemed that all the sacrifices I had made - leaving my family, being unable to keep in contact with friends and peers, the habit itself being cast aside by our superiors - having to listen to them arguing over what we were going to wear - seeing some even wearing jewellery, make-up and high fashion clothing just was too much! I had wanted to serve God and his people in poverty and as a member of a supportive community. I ended up alone and lonely - unable to tell my parents that it would be o.k. to visit me as there was no-one around to ask permission from! I was neither one thing nor the other. As the time drew near to make final Vows I became very unhappy and I suppose was really sufferring from depression but didn’t realise it then. My Superiors told me I would be fine - I was one of the best! Well I certainly didn’t feel it and I became ill. The final straw was the decision of one of the 4 members of my particular convent renouncing her vows after 24 years service. I left the Community - But being Irish - the guilt has NEVER left me!
I met my husband at a wedding the following year - and when we we visited the Convent the next Christmas Eve for Midnight Mass, I bawled my eyes out with grief - the poor man asked me to marry him that night because he thought I was going to go back to the convent! We married in August 1977. It was not until 1991 that I finally felt a lestening of guilt at leaving the Convent. Luckily my husband has been a kind, tolerant and good Catholic man. We have been blessed with two wonderful children. My husband still occassionally slows the car down when passing monasteries and convents and invites me to go back - but before I can get the door open he speeds off - just incase! I’ve told him I will return if he becomes a monk or if he dies! The children won’t be surprised!

 

[Cluny]

Most of the reasons given here are echoed in the book WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD SISTERS GONE?

Oddly enough, they are repeated in the controversial book LESBIAN NUNS–BREAKING SILENCE.

In both books, many voices expressed the sadness, emptiness, and even disgust when the usual practices of the tradtional liturgy, music, prayer, habit, and spirituality were taken away. Many felt they had in fact been cheated.

More than once, and not just here, have I heard of “elderly, frumpy, liberal female social workers who don’t date.”

As one ex-nun said, “Why go through a novitiate and take vows, only to live like a secular?”

** I’ve told him I will return if he becomes a monk or if he dies! The children won’t be surprised!**

Bobbie, it’s very common in Orthodoxy for a widow or widower to embrace monastic life after the death of a spouse and whene the children are grown!

 

[otjm]

The documents of the Second Vatican Council were often interpreted according to individual agendas, and their true meaning and intentions were lost in the race to “change with the times”. Just as parishioners were often led astray by well meaning but misguided priests who told them such things as “use your own conscience” with regard to topics such as birth control, religious were also confused about the directions they were being given in their own communities. The impact on cloistered communities was less because they took decades to review and renew their constitutions, but even in the cloister there was confusion about how to participate in renewal without losing their essential charisms.

For the active communities, the changes came about “too much, too soon” and in most cases, the Council documents were used as a license to experiment with almost anything, rather than as a guideline to help renew communities and return to the charism of their founders.

The fault was not in the documents of the Council but in their interpretation and implementation. When we go back and read the documents today, we see that so much was taken out of context or interpreted in ways that were definitely in opposition to the original intention of the Council.

In those communities where changes were put into place quickly, some religious felt as if everything they cherished was being torn away from them, and when they resisted, they were made to feel as if they were “old fashioned” and out of touch with the times.

Suddenly religious were being told to “get in touch with their feelings” and to seek “personal fulfilment” and psychologists were brought into communities to help them identify their own needs and wants. This particular step led to the disintegration of many communities because it set up internal conflicts between “self-fulfilment” and “self-sacrifice”. The whole reason and purpose for religious life (a life of self-giving service to God) became a stumbling block for many.

It was a terrifically difficult time for most active communities, and it is not surprising that many left during this time. But just as a pendulum swings to one side, it also has to return back again from where it came, although not as far this time. I see a resurgence of interest in religious life in the Church now, and this is a good thing, especially as the discerners today are definitely making their decisions in a more well-informed way. There are a variety of expressions of religious life now, and one can evaluate a community based on their own understanding and affinities (for such things as habit/no habit). Discerners now seem able to see a relationship between self-sacrifice and self-fulfilment (similar to the self-giving between a man and woman in marriage).

Pope John XXIII said he wanted to open the window and let the fresh air in, and sometimes this causes a lot of dust to fly and things in a room to be disturbed - but eventually it all settles down again. Change is often painful, but not all change is bad. In hindsight, it appears that things all moved too fast but it did wake us all up and brought attention to religious life and the liturgy and there is probably a greater awareness of these things today than there was before the Council. The young people today seem very knowledgeable about issues within the Church, and they are making well-informed choices in their discernment. This is a good thing.

That is one of the better and well reasoned posts I have seen.

 

[otjm]

I didn’t blame V2. I didn’t mention it at all. It was the modernists who distorted the message of V2.

However, I do think it was imprudent to call a Council in such a time of turmoil, especially when there was no doctrinal issue that needed addressing.

God Bless

And having been around well before V2 started, I would say that one would have to be extremely prescient to know that the turmoil was impending. Most of the world was not in turmoil when it started, and a goodly portion of it was not in turmoil when it ended. The turmoil grew by leaps and bounds but most certainly was not instantaneous.