Why can't Fr. Jenkins be fired?

[tcm22]

I agree with Coder, that although we and that includes me, wish that people like Jenkins could be tossed out of their positions, Coder is right in reminding me (all of us?) in saying the cloth of the man should be respected. Sometimes it is hard to discriminate the mortal from the divine.

I don’t think this discussion has anything to do with respecting Fr Jenkins as a man, or even as a priest. From what I’ve read about him, he’s a very well educated and thoughtful man, and likely very engaging. However, religious men are still capable of making bad decisions. While we can remain respectful, we can also point out errors – particularly those that do damage to the reputation or position of the Church.

What is at issue is accountability for his decisions as a representative of the Church. Yes hie is the university president. Yes – he works for the board. Only the trustees can fire him. That’s the practical fact of the matter. However, he’s also an ordained Priest and has taken vows which supersede any obligation he has to the Board or the University. The issue here is why he’s not being held accountable for a decision so directly at odds with Church teaching and the Bishop’s statements.

At this point it’s clear that the USCCB and Fr Jenkins superiors within the order have decided not to take a public stand against his decision to support honoring President Obama. That’s too bad, but that doesn’t mean Fr Jenkins should be given a pass for making bad decisions in a position of tremendous responsibility.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think this discussion has anything to do with respecting Fr Jenkins as a man . . . .]While we can remain respectful, we can also point out errors –

However, he’s also an ordained Priest and has taken vows which supersede any obligation he has to the Board or the University. The issue here is why he’s not being held accountable for a decision so directly at odds with Church teaching and the Bishop’s statements.

At this point it’s clear that the USCCB and Fr Jenkins superiors within the order have decided not to take a public stand .

The bold is mine.

You are correct. They have not taken a public stand. However, it is not necessary for them to take a public stand. We do not know what is happening behind closed doors and we do not have the right to know unless the religious superior wants us to know.

A major superior of men is an Ordinary, just as much as any bishop, even if that superior is not a bishop. He enjoys the same authority. He can discipline and make plans to correct a situation and execute those plans quietly. That is his right as an Ordinary.

Religious superiors of men are not diocesan bishops. Therefore, they have no canonical or moral obligation to the laity. Their canonical and moral obligation is to their community and to the Holy See. They have to account to their community who elected them superior and to the Holy Father who approves the election. They do not have to account to the laity.

This was a law that was passed in the Church during the Cluniac movement in the early part of the 9th century. Religious communities of men are exempt from: the laity, the king, the local bishop and the bishops’ conference. They only answer to government, the bishop and the bishops’ conference in matters that are under the jurisdiction of these authorities.

You can check out the Cluniac movement and find the story. But in a nutshell, this was done because the Holy Father wanted to protect religious men from outside interference.

In the case of Fr. Jenkins, the fact that he is a religious overrides the fact that he is a priest. His vows and bond to his religious community take precedence. This is true of all religious, whether you’re a priest, a lawyer, teacher, cook or other.

Therefore, his religious congregation has complete authority and autonomy to deal with this issue in private. We may or many not be told what is happening or what is going to happen.

At this point, for us to say that nothing is happening or nothing will happen, because we have not been told, is not helpful. Because we may never be told. We have no right to know what goes on between a superior and the brothers under his authority. That’s one reason why the early religious lived in cloisters. It provided privacy to live the religious life.

Fr. Jenkins works at ND. He does not work for the diocese. Therefore, what he does at Notre Dame is not a matter that concerns the faithful of any diocese. It is a matter between him and the hierarchy of his religious community.

The way that this works is that the USCCB can present their concerns to either the Holy See or tot he Provincial Superior of the Holy Cross. From that point forward the matter is taken up between those powers and even the USCCB is out of the equation, because Fr. Jenkins does not have a vow of obedience to the bishops.

A religious vows to obey his founder, the rule of his community, the successor of the founder, his brothers when they vote on something, his superior and the Holy See who approves of anything in their rule and approves the election of superiors. If you observe, the bishops are not in the equation and neither is the laity.

We may never know what transpired behind closed doors on the ND issue. But let us not assume that nothing happened, because we don’t know. For all we know, Fr. Jenkins may be begging for his food on his knees in the community refectory for a year, just a speculation.

Fr. Jenkins cannot overrule the Board that runs the university without the permission of the Provincial superior. The permission is not granted until the Provincial superior has exhausted all dialogue with the Board. The Provincial also has to be ready to be sued by the Board, if he allows Fr. Jenkins to violate his contract. These are not simple matters nor are they matters that are resolved in a few weeks.

The problem here was that this announcement did not leave much time to do much, other than write letters and have a few meetings. All the people that we’re talking about: the Board, the USCCB, the Provcincial Superior, the Superior General, and the Holy See are doing many things at the same time… It is not practical to drop everything for ND.

Being a religious, I know one thing for sure. The Provincial Superior tried to take action and was unsuccessful or was part of the problem. I can tell the readers why I know. The Superior General got involved. It was he who wrote the letter to the President, maybe to Fr. Jenkins and the Board too. The Superior General of an order cannot get involved in the local affairs of a province unless the Provincial Superior asks for help or the Provincial Superior is part of the problem. Like every organization, religious founders wrote the chain of command into their rules. They were very careful to protect their sons from abuse of power by superiors.

It’s just sad that this mess happened in the first place. I do not know Fr. Jenkins, but he has a good reputaton. In this case, he and the Board used poor judgment. I don’t think that they saw the rammifications outside of the university. That’s unfortunate.

I am of the opinion, that they made a major administrative blunder. This is solely my opinion. I’m not representing anyone else’s opinon on the matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SIb4G]

I don’t think this discussion has anything to do with respecting Fr Jenkins as a man, or even as a priest. From what I’ve read about him, he’s a very well educated and thoughtful man, and likely very engaging. However, religious men are still capable of making bad decisions. While we can remain respectful, we can also point out errors – particularly those that do damage to the reputation or position of the Church.

What is at issue is accountability for his decisions as a representative of the Church. Yes hie is the university president. Yes – he works for the board. Only the trustees can fire him. That’s the practical fact of the matter. However, he’s also an ordained Priest and has taken vows which supersede any obligation he has to the Board or the University. The issue here is why he’s not being held accountable for a decision so directly at odds with Church teaching and the Bishop’s statements.

At this point it’s clear that the USCCB and Fr Jenkins superiors within the order have decided not to take a public stand against his decision to support honoring President Obama. That’s too bad, but that doesn’t mean Fr Jenkins should be given a pass for making bad decisions in a position of tremendous responsibility.

tcm—I think your position is very well articulated and, for the most part, I heartily agree. However, I believe Jenkins’ words and stance have everything to do with " him as a man". I don’t mean this in a morally judgmental way but in an analytical and critical way. And, herein, lies either respect or disrespect.

No Christian should hide behind the cloth, whatever the fabric. I’m reminded of the opening scene at Chelsea in the movie “A Man For All Seasons” when Thomas responds to Norfolk by pointing out that Wolsey is “the Chancellor of England” to which Thomas’ brilliant daughter, Margaret, responds: “no that’s his office, what is the man?”

The man: INDIVIDUAL accountability and responsibility.

 

[tcm22]

JR,

You are correct. We don’t know what is happening within Fr Jenkins order, or even what sort of private communications has occurred between ND and the Bishops. I guess my frustration stems from the fact that the scandal itself was so publicly prominent that the lack of response – be it legally or morally based – is frustrating. I public statement specifically addressing the incident from the UCSSB or even the Order would have gone a long way toward addressing the concerns of the Catholic Faithful.

I will take slight issue with one of your comments:

Fr. Jenkins works at ND. He does not work for the diocese. Therefore, what he does at Notre Dame is not a matter that concerns the faithful of any diocese. It is a matter between him and the hierarchy of his religious community.

As has been demonstrated in this thread, Fr Jenkins’ position at Notre Dame and outside the authority of the local diocese has been well established. However, as an ordained Priest and Catholic Christian holding a prominent position at a prestigious US University, what he does at Notre Dame, particularly with regard to the President of the United States, is a matter that extends far beyond the hierarchy of the religious community. While he is certainly not legally accountable to the local Bishop or the laity in the diocese, his actions still reflect on the Church, what we stand for and what we profess.

In this instance, the use of the “bully pulpit” by a spokesman from the USCCB to publicly distance themselves for the “honors” bestowed by ND would have been a good thing.

tcm—I think your position is very well articulated and, for the most part, I heartily agree. However, I believe Jenkins’ words and stance have everything to do with " him as a man". I don’t mean this in a morally judgmental way but in an analytical and critical way. And, herein, lies either respect or disrespect.

No Christian should hide behind the cloth, whatever the fabric. I’m reminded of the opening scene at Chelsea in the movie “A Man For All Seasons” when Thomas responds to Norfolk by pointing out that Wolsey is “the Chancellor of England” to which Thomas’ brilliant daughter, Margaret, responds: “no that’s his office, what is the man?”

The man: INDIVIDUAL accountability and responsibility.

SIb4G, I think we’re basically saying the same thing here. I don’t know enough about Fr Jenkins to pass any sort of judgment on him as a man of character or not. From what I read about him, he seems to be a very accomplished and successful man. All I can judge from my perspective is his decision, as a Catholic Priest and President of a (nominally) Catholic University, to support the granting of honors to a man with a track record of unfettered support to abortion. I find his action wrong and unjustifiable by any stretch.

Clearly the only people that can fire him is the University Board who gave him the job. Arguably he could also be removed upon direction of his Superior in the order.

I’m disappointed neither of those two things happened.

 

[JReducation]

JR,

You are correct. We don’t know what is happening within Fr Jenkins order, or even what sort of private communications has occurred between ND and the Bishops. I guess my frustration stems from the fact that the scandal itself was so publicly prominent that the lack of response – be it legally or morally based – is frustrating. I public statement specifically addressing the incident from the UCSSB or even the Order would have gone a long way toward addressing the concerns of the Catholic Faithful.

I will take slight issue with one of your comments:

As has been demonstrated in this thread, Fr Jenkins’ position at Notre Dame and outside the authority of the local diocese has been well established. However, as an ordained Priest and Catholic Christian holding a prominent position at a prestigious US University, what he does at Notre Dame, particularly with regard to the President of the United States, is a matter that extends far beyond the hierarchy of the religious community. While he is certainly not legally accountable to the local Bishop or the laity in the diocese, his actions still reflect on the Church, what we stand for and what we profess.

In this instance, the use of the “bully pulpit” by a spokesman from the USCCB to publicly distance themselves for the “honors” bestowed by ND would have been a good thing.

I agree that not knowing can be very frustrating for many people. But one must often accept this as a part of life. We’re not always going to know everything.

I want to clarify one common misconception that people have about priests who are religious. When a priest is also a religious, his religious vocation overrides his vocation to the priesthood. The priesthood defines how he serves the Church and the people of God. Religious life defines who he is.

The point is that Fr. Jenkins is a Brother of the Holy Cross. From that perspective, religious congregations and religious orders hold to the rule and tradition that they do not communicate with the laity about their internal affairs. Sometimes, some religious communities have it expressly written into their constitution that they are never to allow laity into their affairs. This is done to avoid contamination from the laity. It was a practice that was started by St. Bernard and St. Bruno to protect the monks. It was later adopted by other religious founders such as Mother Teresa. It is not intended to offend the laity, but to protect the internal life of the community, by keeping out the laity’s comments, observations and intervention.

I understand what you are saying. It’s a real point of view. Notre Dame is a very visible university and what happened has stirred up quite a stir among some lay people. But the Brothers do reserve the right to claim that the university is not part of the local Church and therefore, they have no legal obligation to make a public comment.

There are two points of view here and both are valid. The laity is stirred up and the religious of the Holy Cross do not owe the laity an explanation for what happens at their university. If it had been a diocesan school the situation would have been different.

There is no easy solution other than to wish that this whole mess had never happened.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[imperial]

Correct Judas didn’t inform the laity either.
Looks like Jenkins didn’t consult the highest of all God.
Lets put it this way I have a job and the owner of the company said you must do x y and z. that is your job.
My supervisor comes along and tells me to do a, b and c.
It becomes my responsibility to now make a decision. I have 2 choices listen to the owner or Listen to the supervisor. My mind tells me oh the owner just likes doing things the hard and long way, it’s easier if I do it the way my supervisor told me that’s how the rest do it, any way I don’t want to upset anybody I need to go with the flow.
Guess what the boss finds out, he says I’m sorry I have to let you go I know in my heart why, but I still makes excuses but sir the supervisor old me to do it this way.
My boss intervenes and said you have free will. I start packing. Jenkins is responsible and by the look on his face that day he was overwhelmed with joy

 

[JReducation]

Correct Judas didn’t inform the laity either.
Looks like Jenkins didn’t consult the highest of all God.
Lets put it this way I have a job and the owner of the company said you must do x y and z. that is your job.
My supervisor comes along and tells me to do a, b and c.
It becomes my responsibility to now make a decision. I have 2 choices listen to the owner or Listen to the supervisor. My mind tells me oh the owner just likes doing things the hard and long way, it’s easier if I do it the way my supervisor told me that’s how the rest do it, any way I don’t want to upset anybody I need to go with the flow.
Guess what the boss finds out, he says I’m sorry I have to let you go I know in my heart why, but I still makes excuses but sir the supervisor old me to do it this way.
My boss intervenes and said you have free will. I start packing. Jenkins is responsible and by the look on his face that day he was overwhelmed with joy

The question on the table is not who was responsible. We all agree that Fr. Jenkins and the Board of the University were responsible. But we also have to follow the laws of the Church.

The law of the Church is that these matters are resolved by the major superior and the issue remains within the community. The only person outside the community who has a right to know is the Holy Father.

It has been a tradition of over 1,000 years that the popes do not require religious congregations and religious orders of men to make public their internal disciplinary activities without his consent. Even after the major superior decides how to handle a situation, it must go up the chain of command.

In this case, it goes to the Superior General. From there it goes to the Sacred Congregation for Religious Institutes and Institutes of Apostolic Life, then it goes to the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and finally to the Holy Father. Usually, issues don’t go that far. Most of the time, the religious involved respond to the immediate major superior, which is the Provincial Superior. But that’s the established hierarchy.

It actually makes sense. As you go up the chain of command the people at the top have many issues to address. They have to put the requests for assistance on a cue according to priorities. Just an example, there are several million religious in the world. The Holy Father does not have the time to deal with individual issues. That’s why he subscribes to the principle of subsidiarity. He allows those at lower levels to deal with these problems.

The only problems that come to him are those that have no resolution at the bottom or when canon law is violated. In the case of Fr. Jenkins, because he is a religious, the chain of command is longer than if he were a secular priest. A secular priest deals directly with a bishop. A priest who is a religious deals with a long line of superiors, because the religious life takes precedence over the priesthood. Therefore, the issue is handed over to the authorities that deal with religious.

The only time that a priest who is a religious may have to face the Sacred Congregation for Priests is if he violates a canon that speaks only to priests.

I know this is complex, but the Church is very big and inernational. We have to allow it to work in its own manner and follow its own protocols. There is no way that the Church’s government is going to satisfy all of us. I admit that it is cumbersome, but I for one do not have a simpler system to suggest in its place without violating canon law, religious rules and religious constitutions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tcm22]

The laity is stirred up and the religious of the Holy Cross do not owe the laity an explanation for what happens at their university.

I would submit that the religious of Holy Cross may not be required, legally speaking, to explain themselves, but in light of the circumstances there is a strong moral argument to do so. They may not want “contamination” from the laity, however when they become heavily engaged in the secular world they certainly won’t get any deference from me in that regard.

I fully respect the right of the Holy Cross order to govern themselves and insulate themselves from the ebb and flow of secular life and secular politics.

In this instance, Fr Jenkins thrust the order into the thick of US domestic politics. As a Catholic, whether priest and/or religious or not, he should be called to account by someone for his decision to honor Obama. There may not be any legal options available outside of his order, but a clearly worded statement by the USCCB would certainly make the point. There may not be a practical consequence, but the message will certainly be clear.

 

[JReducation]

I would submit that the religious of Holy Cross may not be required, legally speaking, to explain themselves, but in light of the circumstances there is a strong moral argument to do so. They may not want “contamination” from the laity, however when they become heavily engaged in the secular world they certainly won’t get any deference from me in that regard.

I fully respect the right of the Holy Cross order to govern themselves and insulate themselves from the ebb and flow of secular life and secular politics.

In this instance, Fr Jenkins thrust the order into the thick of US domestic politics. As a Catholic, whether priest and/or religious or not, he should be called to account by someone for his decision to honor Obama. There may not be any legal options available outside of his order, but a clearly worded statement by the USCCB would certainly make the point. There may not be a practical consequence, but the message will certainly be clear.

There is another thread where one of the bishops was interviewed. As you may know, the USCCB is in session this week. They (USCCB) admits that the wording of their statement is not clear enough. They also agree that they have to do more to engage in a dialogue with university presidents. They also agree that Fr. Jenkins is not in violation of a USCCB decree.

The bishop that was interviewed said that Bishop D’Arcy seems to have stated that his indignation is not that Obama was invited, but that he was not informed ahead of time or asked for (name removed by moderator)ut. This is a legitimate complaint. Even though the university is not legally a part of the diocese, it is a big presence in the diocese. They owe him that courtessy.

I can’t remember the bishop’s name, but you can find the thread on this sub-forum. He seemed to think that the ND issue was not on the agenda for this session of the USCCB. My impression is that the agenda may include making the statement clearer and they may make a statement to themselves that they have to engage the presidents of colleges and universities to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

This actually makes sense to me. Because an instituion is not part of a diocese, it should not be ignored by the bishops. This has happened all too often. They make decrees and then cry out in horror when non diocesan institutions don’t follow them. Well, you have to make sure that you engage those in charge and reach some kind of agreement with them, above all, make sure that everyone is on the same page. You can’t assume that a non diocesan institution is going to apply a rule that was made for dioceses to itself, unless there was a prior agreement that it applies to all.

There is some good coming out of this. The bishops are seeing that they have to ensure that everyone is on the same page and that everyone is speaking clearly. They also have to ensure that they make it clear to the laity where their authority begins and ends. The laity doesn’t always know these things. Why should they? They don’t deal in the administrative aspect of the Church.

On the other hand, the government has no right to put the Church or any person of faith in these corners. They have overstepped the line by their violation of conscience. As people of faith and citizens, we must make that clear to our political leaders around the world. They should keep their hands off.

I’m not sure if I’m making sense here. I hope so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SIb4G]

There is another thread where one of the bishops was interviewed. As you may know, the USCCB is in session this week. They (USCCB) admits that the wording of their statement is not clear enough. They also agree that they have to do more to engage in a dialogue with university presidents. They also agree that Fr. Jenkins is not in violation of a USCCB decree.

The bishop that was interviewed said that Bishop D’Arcy seems to have stated that his indignation is not that Obama was invited, but that he was not informed ahead of time or asked for (name removed by moderator)ut. This is a legitimate complaint. Even though the university is not legally a part of the diocese, it is a big presence in the diocese. They owe him that courtessy.

I can’t remember the bishop’s name, but you can find the thread on this sub-forum. He seemed to think that the ND issue was not on the agenda for this session of the USCCB. My impression is that the agenda may include making the statement clearer and they may make a statement to themselves that they have to engage the presidents of colleges and universities to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

This actually makes sense to me. Because an instituion is not part of a diocese, it should not be ignored by the bishops. This has happened all too often. They make decrees and then cry out in horror when non diocesan institutions don’t follow them. Well, you have to make sure that you engage those in charge and reach some kind of agreement with them, above all, make sure that everyone is on the same page. You can’t assume that a non diocesan institution is going to apply a rule that was made for dioceses to itself, unless there was a prior agreement that it applies to all.

There is some good coming out of this. The bishops are seeing that they have to ensure that everyone is on the same page and that everyone is speaking clearly. They also have to ensure that they make it clear to the laity where their authority begins and ends. The laity doesn’t always know these things. Why should they? They don’t deal in the administrative aspect of the Church.

On the other hand, the government has no right to put the Church or any person of faith in these corners. They have overstepped the line by their violation of conscience. As people of faith and citizens, we must make that clear to our political leaders around the world. They should keep their hands off.

I’m not sure if I’m making sense here. I hope so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR, Apropos you comments above:

1. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that many within the Church have taken a secular path post Vatican II and that fact has contributed greatly to the major problems that the Church faces today, too numerous to mention here. I will only mention abortion because, to me, it is the sin of our age, scandalized beyond moral and spiritual belief by the way it is being addressed. Even most who do admit to its wrong are so timid in addressing it that the opposition is all but invisible; like they wish maybe it will just go away on its own. Well 36 years later, it hasn’t. (Clarification: I understand there are many courageous people that are working long and hard for the unborn.) Hate to say it, what really seems to be lacking is MORAL LEADERSHIP. And, as a Catholic, who better to turn to than the bishops. Yet now as before, reading between the lines of these initial conference reports, they’re going to once again play the game of semantics and clear communication. And think that that is enough! Maybe they ought to just take a courageous stand for the TRUTH, wherever it takes them, rather than get into endless dialogue of “what is the truth”. Without trying to oversimplify this, I fear what we are witness to is operating in ‘survival mode’, certainly not the pattern OUR SAVIOUR taught! (I KNOW— we want to be ‘charitible’ and ‘non-judgmental’.) My only response is two numbers: 36 and 50 million. These numbers BEG charity and judgment!
2. The major Catholic universities in this country, especially Jesuit run, are in their heart and soul secular. That’s my sincere (and considered) belief. Yea most have religious trappings, but is that what they are teaching? There are many reasons to doubt that that is what they are teaching. (Again too numerous to mention.) The infamous Land 'O Lakes conference changed the landscape and may have been the start of the thought: “prestige over honor”. What was the real motivation of that conference and its ensuing doctrine? I believe it is not as idealistic as presented before or since. And, as you know, books have been written on this subject. Not all good. And where are the bishops? You have very ably explained the politics and the governance of the question. But, again, MORAL LEADERSHIP and authority appear absent or, as best, very weak. Semantics and clear communication avail nothing: these academicians are running amok at the expense of Catholic theology and witness in the name of “academic freedom”! Have been for years! Can there be any question why catechesis and liturgy have been so lacking (dare I say lousy) these many years since Vatican II?
3. I have heard and read great words from many American bishops over the last several months, but so many remain silent. Why? If they cannot stand up to the major moral issues of our time—and there are many—I fear we, the Church, are in grave danger of becoming marginalized (if we haven’t already) not only in mainstream society but within that portion of the society that claims to be “Catholic”. To paraphrase a patriot, “now is the time for all good bishops to come to the aid of OUR Church (the TRUTH)”. What we don’t need is parsing words, argumentation and rhetoric. What we do need is courage, courage in the face of danger and courage for the greatest cause: THE TRUTH.

 

[elts1956]

QUOTE=JReducation;5339845]The bold is mine.

You are correct. They have not taken a public stand. However, it is not necessary for them to take a public stand. We do not know what is happening behind closed doors and we do not have the right to know unless the religious superior wants us to know.

A major superior of men is an Ordinary, just as much as any bishop, even if that superior is not a bishop. He enjoys the same authority. He can discipline and make plans to correct a situation and execute those plans quietly. That is his right as an Ordinary.

Religious superiors of men are not diocesan bishops. Therefore, they have no canonical or moral obligation to the laity. Their canonical and moral obligation is to their community and to the Holy See. They have to account to their community who elected them superior and to the Holy Father who approves the election. They do not have to account to the laity.

This was a law that was passed in the Church during the Cluniac movement in the early part of the 9th century. Religious communities of men are exempt from: the laity, the king, the local bishop and the bishops’ conference. They only answer to government, the bishop and the bishops’ conference in matters that are under the jurisdiction of these authorities.

You can check out the Cluniac movement and find the story. But in a nutshell, this was done because the Holy Father wanted to protect religious men from outside interference.

In the case of Fr. Jenkins, the fact that he is a religious overrides the fact that he is a priest. His vows and bond to his religious community take precedence. This is true of all religious, whether you’re a priest, a lawyer, teacher, cook or other.

Therefore, his religious congregation has complete authority and autonomy to deal with this issue in private. We may or many not be told what is happening or what is going to happen.

At this point, for us to say that nothing is happening or nothing will happen, because we have not been told, is not helpful. Because we may never be told. We have no right to know what goes on between a superior and the brothers under his authority. That’s one reason why the early religious lived in cloisters. It provided privacy to live the religious life.

Fr. Jenkins works at ND. He does not work for the diocese. Therefore, what he does at Notre Dame is not a matter that concerns the faithful of any diocese. It is a matter between him and the hierarchy of his religious community.

The way that this works is that the USCCB can present their concerns to either the Holy See or tot he Provincial Superior of the Holy Cross. From that point forward the matter is taken up between those powers and even the USCCB is out of the equation, because Fr. Jenkins does not have a vow of obedience to the bishops.

A religious vows to obey his founder, the rule of his community, the successor of the founder, his brothers when they vote on something, his superior and the Holy See who approves of anything in their rule and approves the election of superiors. If you observe, the bishops are not in the equation and neither is the laity.

We may never know what transpired behind closed doors on the ND issue. But let us not assume that nothing happened, because we don’t know. For all we know, Fr. Jenkins may be begging for his food on his knees in the community refectory for a year, just a speculation.

Fr. Jenkins cannot overrule the Board that runs the university without the permission of the Provincial superior. The permission is not granted until the Provincial superior has exhausted all dialogue with the Board. The Provincial also has to be ready to be sued by the Board, if he allows Fr. Jenkins to violate his contract. These are not simple matters nor are they matters that are resolved in a few weeks.

The problem here was that this announcement did not leave much time to do much, other than write letters and have a few meetings. All the people that we’re talking about: the Board, the USCCB, the Provcincial Superior, the Superior General, and the Holy See are doing many things at the same time… It is not practical to drop everything for ND.

Being a religious, I know one thing for sure. The Provincial Superior tried to take action and was unsuccessful or was part of the problem. I can tell the readers why I know. The Superior General got involved. It was he who wrote the letter to the President, maybe to Fr. Jenkins and the Board too. The Superior General of an order cannot get involved in the local affairs of a province unless the Provincial Superior asks for help or the Provincial Superior is part of the problem. Like every organization, religious founders wrote the chain of command into their rules. They were very careful to protect their sons from abuse of power by superiors.

It’s just sad that this mess happened in the first place. I do not know Fr. Jenkins, but he has a good reputaton. In this case, he and the Board used poor judgment. I don’t think that they saw the rammifications outside of the university. That’s unfortunate.

I am of the opinion, that they made a major administrative blunder. This is solely my opinion. I’m not representing anyone else’s opinon on the matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF



I “HATE” closed doors!! I want everything out in the open so we can ALL have an opinion about what is going on. Wouldn’t that be fun? :juggle:

 

[JReducation]

I “HATE” closed doors!! I want everything out in the open so we can ALL have an opinion about what is going on. Wouldn’t that be fun? :juggle:

Good grief NO. The one thing that I have always admired about my parents, may they rest in peace, is that we never saw them argue. I’m sure they did, because we saw the looks on their faces when they left their room or when they got out of the car.

As a member of a religious family, I like to think that our family is like the biological family. There are some things that belong in the house with the doors shut.

I’ve always thought about this and I have come to believe that when religious communities air out their dirty laundry they can do a lot of harm to their own and to the faithful. People often forget that rteligious are human beings. They make mistakes. They get corrected. They suffer consequences. They disagree and when they do they get heated under the collar.

People also do not understand the concept of religious governnance. A superior is not a daddy who send his subordinates to their cell if they disagree with him. In fact, this is not even allowed by the Church. Superiors must engage their subordinates in fraternal dialogue. Only as a last resort should they use the power of obedience. The idea is that the religious superior is really one of the brothers serving his brothes.

If these discussions were held in the open, many people would become very confused, because it’s a form of government and authority that is not common in the secular world. I can imagine people wondering why the superior doesn’t just tell Fr. Jenkins to shut up or those in Fr. Jenkins corner wondering why he doesn’t send the superior to stick his head in a toilet bowl. That would happen because neither side understands the concept of practicing a loving obedience and exercisins authority as a servant, not a master.

For those who may read this, it is a beautiful system of government and a beautiful relationship between religious superiors and subordinates who do this correctly. My experience with my superiors has always been awesome. There was one with whom I had a clash of personalities and wanted to bop him. Once we got into the mode of the brother who wanted to obey out of love and the superior who wanted to lead as a service to his brother, he and I found that we had some wonderful things in common and one of them was a passion for the Respect Life Ministry.

Let’s keep the family stuff in the family and allow the family to resolve their issues in a loving way that is an example to every family in the world.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

 

[imperial]

As a member of a religious family, I like to think that our family is like the biological family. There are some things that belong in the house with the doors shut.

Let’s keep the family stuff in the family and allow the family to resolve their issues in a loving way that is an example to every family in the world.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

Agreed, however there is certain things that should not be behind doors.
Example you know one of your children associates and honor’s someone who openly supports murder, and is prepared to reject what you taut him regarding the value of life.
Would you simply discuss it behind closed doors, not bother calling a family meeting.
All this is nonsense about the chain of commands it is weak and useless talk.
As usual diverting the whole point.
Nd did NOT represent the holy family.
Lets not be behind door Catholics, may we all serve the lord our God.

**
Resolve what it? It has already been resolved they honored him already nothing to resolve damage done.**

 

[JReducation]

Agreed, however there is certain things that should not be behind doors.
Example you know one of your children associates and honor’s someone who openly supports murder, and is prepared to reject what you taut him regarding the value of life.
Would you simply discuss it behind closed doors, not bother calling a family meeting.
All this is nonsense about the chain of commands it is weak and useless talk.
As usual diverting the whole point.
Nd did NOT represent the holy family.
Lets not be behind door Catholics, may we all serve the lord our God.

**
Resolve what it? It has already been resolved they honored him already nothing to resolve damage done.**

You got the right of it. You call a family meeting. The chapter is the family meeting of a religious community. In the chapter only those who are in perpetual or solemn vows may participate, may hear and may vote. That is Church law and religious law. It has been such since the beginning of religious life since Benedict wrote the first rule for religious.

This is part of Catholic tradition and has never been changed and cannot be changed except by a Papal Bull.

As to the resolution, the question on the title is about Fr. Jenkins. The answer is still to come from the Congregation of the Holy Cross and the Sacred Congregation. You may belive that talk of the chain of command is weak and useless talk, but the Holy See and the Holy Father believe diferently. The Holy Father has created more chains of command and restructrured some, such as the Sacred Congregation for the Faith by appending the Ecclesia Dei Commission to it. That just added another step on the ladder in cases regarding the faith.

The same applies to religious life. There are steps that have to be followed. We are entitled to believe they are weak. But as long as you and I belong to the Church, we have to follow them.

This is where it is hard to be a Catholic, to follow when we are in disagreement. It is also one of the greatest acts of humility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bro JR,

Your previous post was excellent and gave another insight into a very complex situation.

Your last post was also excellent - and responded in with kindness and understanding to a very angry post.

It is always a plesure to read your posts.

Thank you for taking the time to inform us on these matters.

God bless

You got the right of it. You call a family meeting. The chapter is the family meeting of a religious community. In the chapter only those who are in perpetual or solemn vows may participate, may hear and may vote. That is Church law and religious law. It has been such since the beginning of religious life since Benedict wrote the first rule for religious.

This is part of Catholic tradition and has never been changed and cannot be changed except by a Papal Bull.

As to the resolution, the question on the title is about Fr. Jenkins. The answer is still to come from the Congregation of the Holy Cross and the Sacred Congregation. You may belive that talk of the chain of command is weak and useless talk, but the Holy See and the Holy Father believe diferently. The Holy Father has created more chains of command and restructrured some, such as the Sacred Congregation for the Faith by appending the Ecclesia Dei Commission to it. That just added another step on the ladder in cases regarding the faith.

The same applies to religious life. There are steps that have to be followed. We are entitled to believe they are weak. But as long as you and I belong to the Church, we have to follow them.

This is where it is hard to be a Catholic, to follow when we are in disagreement. It is also one of the greatest acts of humility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[imperial]

Hi, Bro JR,

Your last post was also excellent - and responded in with kindness and understanding to a very angry post.

You refer to me as being angry; please allow me to explain my feelings.
I am upset to hear thousands of babies murdered every day, not just in America but all over the world.
If I am upset and I’m a far cry from perfect, than how upsetting is it for God.

 

[JReducation]

tqualey;5347619:

Hi, Bro JR,

Your last post was also excellent - and responded in with kindness and understanding to a very angry post.

You refer to me as being angry; please allow me to explain my feelings.
I am upset to hear thousands of babies murdered every day, not just in America but all over the world.
If I am upset and I’m a far cry from perfect, than how upsetting is it for God.

Imperial, there are many people of good conscience who are very upset about abortion and who are trying to do something about it. I belong to a religious community whose entire ministry is Respect Life, from conception to the grave. We work with the diocese to run 15 centers for women in crisis preganancies. Yours truly runs a school for children who were given up by their parents, because they had disabilities. These children were going to be terminated before they were born and many good samaritans stepped in and saved their lives. We now teach them.

Yours truly and three other brothers also do post abortion spiritual direction for fathers. We work with a great team of people, clergy, religious and lay, who provide counseling, education and care for women and their children, as well as spiritual and psychological guidance for families who are considering abortion or are recovering from an abortion.

Our Secular Franciscans help run retreats and training sessions for priests, deacons and laity on the legal and political threats to the unborn.

All that being said and more that I have not shared, there is no room in our hearts to disobey systems that have been in place for centuries and that work to preserve the inner peace and stability of religious communities. Without this inner peace and stability, those of us who are religious would never be able to do these kind of work. It is not simple.

So . . . please give us a chance. Don’t judge us and criticize us at every turn or everytime someone does something wrong. We are human and so is everyone else in the Church. Human beings make mistakes, even saints.

But a mistake and frustration is never a good motive for overstepping rules and doing things our way. One wrong will never fix another.

As St. Augustine told his monks, “never act when you’re angry, afraid or in doubt. Wait and let God speak to you in the quiet of the calm.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SIb4G]

tqualey;5347619:

Hi, Bro JR,

Your last post was also excellent - and responded in with kindness and understanding to a very angry post.

You refer to me as being angry; please allow me to explain my feelings.
I am upset to hear thousands of babies murdered every day, not just in America but all over the world.
If I am upset and I’m a far cry from perfect, than how upsetting is it for God.

Well, Christ was perfect. And one can only imagine, based on his reaction to the money changers in the temple, how He might react to those “thousands of babies murdered everyday”. I believe it would be with righteous anger— and moral relativism would be nowhere to be found! God bless YOUR righteous anger.

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

“…if my life (for the protest of the mouth is deceitful!) does not express that I fear Thee—this means that ‘all is lost’”.

 

[JReducation]

imperial;5347743:

Well, Christ was perfect. And one can only imagine, based on his reaction to the money changers in the temple, how He might react to those “thousands of babies murdered everyday”. I believe it would be with righteous anger— and moral relativism would be nowhere to be found! God bless YOUR righteous anger.

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

“…if my life (for the protest of the mouth is deceitful!) does not express that I fear Thee—this means that ‘all is lost’”.

The example that you have provided is a wonderful one. Many people don’t fully understand what made Christ so angry. At the time, synogogues were the center of culture, much like shrines and universities were in the Church of latter years.

People would gather there to pray, but also to purchase things that they needed. Judea was at the crossroads between the Roman, Greek and Egyptian worlds. There were money changers in the synagogues. They performed a service for the people. They exchanged the currency of one nation for that of another.

When Christ realized that these individuals were not serving the people, but were stealing from the poor and illiterate who did not know that they were being robbed his indignation flared up.

Christ’s indignation flared up in the presence of a great injustice against those who were vulnerable. That is what we must also feel in the presence of abortion.

However, Christ did not bring down the entire synagogue or the rules of the synagogue to protect the vulnerable.

In the same way, we cannot bring down religious communities, universities, the diocese, the USCCB or the Church to save the vulnerable. This would be inconsistent with Christ’s indignation. This would be an abuse of anger.

We have to temper our anger with reason. I guess this is why the Holy Father keeps reminding us that Faith and Reason go together. It is too tempting to lose our perspective when we are angry, even if we are angry at the right thing.

When we combine anger with reason, we produce great works of humility and mercy, as well as justice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[imperial]

Well, Christ was perfect. And one can only imagine, based on his reaction to the money changers in the temple, how He might react to those “thousands of babies murdered everyday”. I believe it would be with righteous anger— and moral relativism would be nowhere to be found! God bless YOUR righteous anger.

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

“…if my life (for the protest of the mouth is deceitful!) does not express that I fear Thee—this means that ‘all is lost’”.

Thank you for explaining my post much better than I did
May God bless you