Why are Religious Orders in the U.S. dying?

[commenter]

In any case, religious are accountable only to their Ordinary or to the Holy Father. The rest of us owe them the respect they are entitled to by being in the state of perfection of consecrated life, striving to follow the Evangelical Counsels of Christ. If they make mistakes or embrace things that are problematic, that’s for their superiors, locally and in Rome, to deal with. Badmouthing them will not help a bit.

Agreed. We can’t judge the individual religious, or any other person, in terms of their personal good or evil. Furthermore, the religious orders have different strengths and different weaknesses, so generalizing needs caution.

That said, we can generalize to some extent as to the public witness of religious communities. Where I live, some institutions that are heavily secularized still advertise as “Franciscan” or “Jesuit”. Parents and students looking for a Catholic education often enroll based on their previous history. They end up paying Catholic school tuition for what is in effect mostly a public school education. Alumni give money, based on the past, because they are contacted by religious, who pretend the school is still Catholic and Franciscan, or Jesuit.

It is not “badmouthing”, but it is prudence, for us to point out to people the current reality of these institutions. I do not blame the current religious employees for secularizing those institutions, but it is fair to point out they are participating in something not quite honest by keeping their label on those schools. This is one reason why so many Orders are dying, they have no credibility.

It is not wrong, but charitable, for laity to inform other laity when things are different from what they are advertised to be.

 

[RoseScented]

If you want an interesting look at the past few decades of religious life in the US, up until the most recent release of the doctrinal assessment of the LCWR, I’d recommend checking out the book “Sisters in Crisis Revisited: From Unraveling to Reform to Renewal” by Ann Carey. I just finished reading it recently and the ending of the book shows a positive outlook on religious life in the future for the US but it is going to take a bit of time to rebuild. It’s quite an interesting read, even though hard at times for me since I’m discerning religious life.

 

[commenter]

RoseScented,

We on CAF can certainly offer up prayers for your vocational discernment process!

 

[RoseScented]

Thank you! The prayers are appreciated especially since I have a medical condition so my options are limited. I will actually be visiting with some Visitandines in a couple weeks so I’m both nervous and excited.

 

[ErraticFaith]

You could simplify it to a single word.

Secularism.

Or in more detail, especially following America in particular;

A miss understanding in the phrase 'seperation of church and state.

The founding fathers meant religious ‘institution’ to be separated from government - Not the gospel. Unfortunately the gospel was ‘‘thrown out with the bath water’’ to speak.

The reality however, isn’t what you might expect. Question of faith, hope, spirituality aren’t fading. They are at an all time high infact.

What has dwindled is the churches ability to touch the people. In a way that matters to the modern world in which they live.

Fix the divide, heal the wounds and your problem evaporates.
Unfortunately everyone continues to promote division instead. Which will end institutions yes, because they break against youthful stubbornness and their attachment to the physical world.

You can’t miss something, if you don’t feel it’s missing. Young people are far less stupid than some may suppose. They simply want the truth. At a time when even governments peddle obvious lies to keep the economy turning.

So times are no different. Greed and sin are still the threat they always were. In a sense, stop fighting the youth and they’ll stop fighting you.

 

[the_coppersmith]

It is not “badmouthing”, but it is prudence, for us to point out to people the current reality of these institutions… it is fair to point out they are participating in something not quite honest by keeping their label on those schools…It is not wrong, but charitable, for laity to inform other laity when things are different from what they are advertised to be.

Lately, many think that pointing out other people’s and institution’s wrongs is the nice, charitable thing to do.

Now, if an institution is not up to its standards, it is not wrong for me not to, say, send my children to that school or university, or to use the appropriate channels in a polite way to point out the issues that have come to my attention.

But to tell others about it, or to discuss it publicly? That is called detraction, rash judgment, and in the worst case, calumny. None of those is synonymous with prudence, fairness, or charity.

Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion.
[CCC 2464-2513]

 

[commenter]

Lately, many think that pointing out other people’s and institution’s wrongs is the nice, charitable thing to do.

Now, if an institution is not up to its standards, it is not wrong for me not to, say, send my children to that school or university, or to use the appropriate channels in a polite way to point out the issues that have come to my attention.

But to tell others about it, or to discuss it publicly? That is called detraction, rash judgment, and in the worst case, calumny. None of those is synonymous with prudence, fairness, or charity.

Suppose a fundamentalist group sets up a chapel in a poor neighborhood called “The Catholic Center”. Suppose they invite youth to the programs which are Catholic sounding, but the message leads towards fundamentalism. OK, you can write them a letter asking them to change; you can avoid sending your child there. But surely there is a responsibility to let your neighbors know about this.

My alma mater high school has been 90% secularized. I, and others, have written to them, with no change at all. It uses the word “Franciscan” far more often than when I was there - it is part of their marketing campaign.

Family A sends their child there. But they don’t realize it really isn’t Catholic anymore until their child is fairly well along, and transfer is difficult. Family B has a child in 8th grade. Family A does not know them personally, but they know there are other families like them, who think that high school is still Franciscan and Catholic. It is charitable for Family A to communicate publicly so that Family B can make an informed decision.

Keep in mind families are getting lots of advertising talking about the school’s (past) heritage, but there is no mention that in 2017 there is no doctrinal content, or that the current school sometimes invites prochoice politicians to visit. All the families see at Open House is the word “Franciscan”, or “Jesuit” or whatever, over and over.

I agree we should not go public until discrete options have been tried, but as an alumnus and parent, those options have been tried and failed.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But to tell others about it, or to discuss it publicly? That is called detraction, rash judgment, and in the worst case, calumny. None of those is synonymous with prudence, fairness, or charity.

You seem to take issue with any kind of public criticism relating to the Church.
This is a discussion board. Discussion is going to involve sharing of perspectives and occasional disagreement or negative perception.

The person you’re criticizing did not engage in excessive trash talking. Please respect others’ rights to share their views.

 

[commenter]

You seem to take issue with any kind of public criticism relating to the Church.

This is a discussion board. Discussion is going to involve sharing of perspectives and occasional disagreement or negative perception.

The person you’re criticizing did not engage in excessive trash talking. Please respect others’ rights to share their views.

I am very reluctant to support public criticism relating to the Church, and feel this has been often abused. But it is fair to publicly refute some common misinformation. Many laity think local Catholic high schools and even colleges are supervised by the Church. The reality is there is only a slim connection. It is not calumny to point out that reality.

There are positive results sometimes. If there is an orthodox Catholic alternative, people may choose that, instead of the faux Franciscan or faux Jesuit one. In some cases, people have started new colleges or high schools that are genuinely Catholic. This good action would not have happened until enough laity passed on the information that this was needed. You will not have a solution until people realize there is a problem.

The same thing has happened with religious orders. First, you try to persuade them to return to Catholic orthodoxy, discretely. If that fails, you have a responsibility to people who are looking for a vocation to let them know the strengths and weaknesses in specific orders. Sometimes this results in persuading orders to reform. Other times it results in new, orthodox orders being formed.

 

[JimG]

As to why (some) religious orders are dying: Ann Carey has written about this subject for many years. Her recent article in the National Catholic Register has a pretty good summary of what happened.

‘Progressive’ Orders are Passing Away—the Future Belongs to the Faithful| National Catholic Register

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Nailed it JimG. My rule of thumb is, if a sister order has forsaken the habit, they’re dying.

 

[phil19034]

My alma mater high school has been 90% secularized. I, and others, have written to them, with no change at all. It uses the word “Franciscan” far more often than when I was there - it is part of their marketing campaign.

It you are referring to the trend of secularized “Catholic” schools & colleges to avoid using the name “Catholic” and only referring to things like “in the Franciscan tradition,” “in the Ignatian tradition,” “in the Benedictine tradition,” etc; but never mentioning anything about being Catholic - then I understand what you mean.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Suppose a fundamentalist group sets up a chapel in a poor neighborhood called “The Catholic Center”. Suppose they invite youth to the programs which are Catholic sounding, but the message leads towards fundamentalism

I realize I’m departing from the point of your post, but this struck me. I would rather my grandchildren be exposed to biblical fundamentalists than to dissident Catholics…by far.

 

[the_coppersmith]

Suppose a fundamentalist group sets up a chapel in a poor neighborhood called “The Catholic Center”. Suppose they invite youth to the programs which are Catholic sounding, but the message leads towards fundamentalism. OK, you can write them a letter asking them to change; you can avoid sending your child there. But surely there is a responsibility to let your neighbors know about this.

I see your point, but it’s a partial picture. According to Canon Law, you cannot use the name “Catholic” without permission from the local Ordinary. What you do is, you report this group to your Chancellor’s Office and the diocese deals with the rest.

This has actually happened to a corporation that has printed material and videos on Catholic issues and because of their radical stance they were told by their bishop that they had to change their name as they were not recognized as a “Catholic group”, merely as a group of Catholics. They were Catholic enough to abide by their Ordinary’s mandate

Unless they are schismatic, “independent” or “Old Catholic” (who often claim the name “Catholic” and refer to us as “Roman” Catholic. In which case the diocese may still have the legal option to sue…not too sure about the legal aspect.

The big difference? Your “fundamentalist group” is claiming to be Catholic. It is no sin to point out to others that a deception is taking place (after, of course, the Diocese has issued a public statement or included one in their pastoral bulletin).

But the same cannot be said of legitimate Catholic institutions, especially those that are of Pontifical Right, that is, directly and solely accountable to the Holy See. We can’t just go around badmouthing them because we perceive they are unorthodox or secularized. That does more harm than good. There are many ways to skin a potato, and calling it names in the public square is not the most effective.

 

[commenter]

I realize I’m departing from the point of your post, but this struck me. I would rather my grandchildren be exposed to biblical fundamentalists than to dissident Catholics…by far.

I am not criticizing biblical fundamentalists per se. They stand with us on many issues. I only criticize that tiny fraction that pretend to be something they are not. Truth in Advertising.

 

[the_coppersmith]

My rule of thumb is, if a sister order has forsaken the habit, they’re dying.

Then it appears you slammed your thumb, because many communities transitioned from a traditional habit to a more modern habit or to some form of distinctive garb, and are still thriving. Others have changed to secular attire or have simply never worn a habit per their Founder’s rule and charism, and are also still thriving.

On the other hand, there are several emerging communities that embrace the habit, but they are slow to grow and often are denied permission to wear the habit in the public square until they become religious institutes of diocesan right.

On the other hand (the one with the healthy thumb, that is) Georgetown University’s study on religious life does show a trend of vocations towards communities with a habit or distinctive religious garb.

 

[the_coppersmith]

the_coppersmith:

But to tell others about it, or to discuss it publicly? That is called detraction, rash judgment, and in the worst case, calumny. None of those is synonymous with prudence, fairness, or charity.

You seem to take issue with any kind of public criticism relating to the Church.
This is a discussion board. Discussion is going to involve sharing of perspectives and occasional disagreement or negative perception.
The person you’re criticizing did not engage in excessive trash talking. Please respect others’ rights to share their views.

This is a Catholic forum, correct? Catholics are expected to behave as Catholics at all times, not just during the Sunday mass.

It is not part of our faith to publicly criticize the Church, the Hierarchy, or Catholic ministries, much less to badmouth individuals (which I have seen in other “Catholic” forums". Please respect my right to uphold Catholicism, thank you.

 

[commenter]

But the same cannot be said of legitimate Catholic institutions, especially those that are of Pontifical Right, that is, directly and solely accountable to the Holy See. We can’t just go around badmouthing them because we perceive they are unorthodox or secularized. That does more harm than good. There are many ways to skin a potato, and calling it names in the public square is not the most effective.

Suppose you were a parent, trying to choose a Catholic education option for your child. Wouldn’t you want to hear the experience of other Catholic parents? Remember there is not only your child’s spiritual benefit, but many thousands of dollars at stake as well. I for one assume there will always be malcontents, cranks who love to complain about everything. But if I see a number of complaints, about something measureable, like the sex ed curriculum, or religion textbooks, I would specifically look into those areas.

Is it charitable to keep my fellow Catholic parent in ignorance? I agree you should follow the chain of command, but in my diocese it sometimes took 20 years of complaints to bring about moderate improvement. What about the children in the meantime? What about their rights?

As a result of complaints, many parents have homeschooled. Other parents and other laity formed an orthodox Catholic high school, with permission of the bishop but not connected to the diocese. We found that it is almost impossible to bring about much improvement in existing schools, once they secularized. I am not blaming the current religious who teach there. But is fair to point out to parents the secularism issue, and also any strengths too.

 

[the_coppersmith]

I see your point very clearly. Let’s go back for a second. Look at the bold parts, please.

Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

One must use common sense The Catholic Church is not about cloak & dagger, like in a Dan Brown novel. Sometimes sharing is appropriate, if done with prudence and for the greater good.

 

[SanRafael1102]

To be concise,

Because we don’t know they exist. There are three communities of religious sisters within an hour of me; most people that go to my parish may be able to name one.

13 years of CCD classes and we never once talked about religious orders/life. It was only marriage, or in extremely rare cases, someone might accidentally fall through the cracks and become a priest.