Why don't people listen to those who live the life?

[TiggerS]

Wow, this thread has really wandered off the path hasn’t it?

Well, I’m done here. I’ve heard enough complaints by the religious to know that my amatuer laymens advice is not needed here or wanted here. I’ve looked back at my own responses to questions and have realised that I have only contributed to the problem that the religious have noted here. I thought I was helping, but really, I have not. My answers have been quite simple and wrong. Questions about vocations are best left to the religious and I will leave them to it. Even though most of my posts and time at CAF have been in this forum and I have enjoyed my time here I am done here and I think other lay people should consider doing the same. We have no expertise in this matter. It has become obvious that we are a problem for the religious in this forum and we should drop out in order for the religious to give true answers to vocation questions.

I think this Forum “Vocations” is for all vocations and not only religious vocations or vocations to the priesthood, unless I am very much mistaken, while many of the threads in the Forum may be focused on those particular calls. I also think that we are all entitled to our opinion and that the very fact that in these post V2 days anyway we are far more informed about religious life than pre V2, that we are entitled to our opinion on the subject of religious life also.
Certainly there may be some strange opinions about religious life, but then there are some strange opinions about the laity that can crop up too. But we really are entitled to our opinion and I would think anyway that all opinions should be welcomed unless CAF in their wisdom decides that some Forums should be restricted to religious and priests only with discerners or that religious and priests alone should answer questions on religious and priestly vocations. Personally I have found it sad wherever sensitivity is expressed by religious or priests towards the laity for some negative reason - it dends to divide and it breaks down unity and community from the people that we look to to be ideals of unity and also community and on an all embracing level in the Community of The Church.

Since there are probably far more readers than contributors in threads, perhaps some strange question asked or opinion given, may give someone the opportunity to set things straight - and something that may have been in the mind of a reader only as well as other contributors. I am not the most prolific of contributors nor even reader, but I am yet to see a thread where something has gone off completely in an incorrect direction and sustained in that direction - but then not being here all that often perhaps I am missing something.

TS

 

[hxcCatholic413]

thanks for the response Brother Jay!! I am very impressed in your grasp of the various religious orders and charisms

 

[JReducation]

Wow, this thread has really wandered off the path hasn’t it?

Well, I’m done here. I’ve heard enough complaints by the religious to know that my amatuer laymens advice is not needed here or wanted here. I’ve looked back at my own responses to questions and have realised that I have only contributed to the problem that the religious have noted here. I thought I was helping, but really, I have not. My answers have been quite simple and wrong. Questions about vocations are best left to the religious and I will leave them to it. Even though most of my posts and time at CAF have been in this forum and I have enjoyed my time here I am done here and I think other lay people should consider doing the same. We have no expertise in this matter. It has become obvious that we are a problem for the religious in this forum and we should drop out in order for the religious to give true answers to vocation questions.

How did you reach that conclusion? I believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion. What is important is to make sure that we explain when something is an opinion and when it’s a fact. Sometimes a reader may not know that what he or she is reading is someone’s opinion. He takes it and runs with it as if it were a fact.

However, the more fact that the lay person learns, the more helpful he can be. Everyone is called to do vocation ministry. Remember, vocation is to be called. Not everyone is called to Holy Orders or to the Consecrated Life. People are also called to marriage and often to secular orders too. Some people may be called to two for the price of one, as I say: the married deacon, the man who is both priest and religious, the woman who is a wife and a Secular Carmelite, etc.

Look at Julian’s post. He is surprised to learn things that he did not know about secular priests. He thought that all priests were consecrated men. Many people believe this. Many people believe that all sisters are nuns. Many people believe that brothers are subordinate to priests or that deacons are subordinate to priests. People often believe that wives are subordinate to husbands. There are individuals who have no idea that there is a difference between an order and a society or that the vows have degrees of intensity. Why do people have these misconceptions and why don’t they know, because the people who can give them the answers don’t know. These are usually catechists, teachers, RCIA volunteers and others who are doing religious education.

As Fr. Barron recently said, we need an army of clerics, brothers, sisters, catechists and teachers to help educate the faithful. Instead of getting frustrated, we should try to learn together. No one expects anyone to know all of these details without being exposed to them. That would be an unreasonable expectation.

The way that we learn is by listening to each other. One person asks the question, the other person listens and then asks another question and so forth. It’s not always one side answering the question either. I have seen some wonderful explanations of marriage by some very holy married people. Not long ago, I was a lecture given by a married woman. It was about chastity. It was impressive how she tied in chastity, celibacy and marriage. She showed the overlaps and the differences in a crystal clear way that everyone understood her. The best part was that she tied it all together in 20 minutes. These are difficult concepts. You have to be good to tie them together in 20 minutes.

Don’t leave. Hang around and share what you know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Br JR,
I was not aware of the freedom that a parish priest enjoys, especially as regards ownership, nor was I fully knowledgeable of the limits that a consecrated religious accepts. Thank you for the detailed information, it was educational for me.

I was taught by Dominican nuns for 5 years, and I always assumed nuns and sisters were the same, however now would I be correct to assume sisters would be a religious such as a Francisan as you described and nuns would be more secular, is that a proper view?

What often happens with women religious is that the title gets confusing. In the Roman Church we call all of them Sister. They dress the same. They follow similar schedules of prayer and work. Most of us only see the externals. We don’t realize that there are non-tangible differences.

Nuns live in enclosures called cloisters or monastries. They rarely leave. They have very few apostolates that serve the lay faithful. Most have none. Their apostolate is prayer. Unless you go to them, you would no be exposed to them.

Sisters live in convents or other forms of housing and they go out every day to work among the fiathful.

The vow of poverty of a nun is a little different from that of a sister. Nuns can own property in common. They may own a large piece of land, such as a farm or a shrine, as do the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration. But no nun may have private ownership.

Sisters may own property in common or not, depending on the statutes of their community. However, canon law allows them to have private ownership. If Donald Trump’s daughter were a sister and he died and left her one million dollars, she owns that. However, she cannot use it. She must assign administration of that to someone else or she may give it away to anyone she wishes, because it’s her’s to give away. A nun would not be allowed to inherit like this. Therefore, she would have nothing to give away.

Nuns are always governed by a superior: Prioress, Abess or some other title. Sisters may have a superior or they may have a council with a president or some other appropriate title. Canon law calls them Supreme Moderators.

Nuns are governed by a rule that they cannot change. They can write constitutions to address issues that are not addressed in the rule. But they cannot change the rule.

Sisters are not governed by a rule. They only have constitutions. They can change those through a democratic process called a chapter. They can rewrite their constitutions, vote and ratify them. In both cases, the Holy See must approve of the final draft. It becomes law when it gets the approval of the Vatican.

For example, when many congregations of sisters voted to wear secular clothing, this was approved by the Holy See. They were not being disobedient. The pope said that he preferred that they wear some kind of habit, but he also said that he would leave it up to them to decide. Pope John Paul II repeated it in Vita Consacrata. Many sisters have taken a lot of heat over the habit, when in fact, they had permission not to wear it.

Some people think that this was a post Vatican II thing. They are wrong. This was long before Vatican I. When St. Vincent de Paul founded the first group of sisters, the Daughers of Charity, he did not give them a habit and the Holy See approved. They adopted a habit on their own. This was in the 1700s. Mother Seton founded the Sisters of Charity in the early 1800s and never gave them a habit. Out of love for Elizabeth Ann, the sisters began to dress in the widow’s garb that Elizabeth wore. In 1946 Mother Teresa laid aside her religious habit and put on the common clothing of the Indian woman. When she was asked what habit her new congregation would wear, she responded, “Jesus wants Indian sisters, not European sisters. Therefore, the Society of Missionaries of Charity shall wear a sari.” It was not until people saw a group of them wearing the same sari that people realized that it was some kind of uniform. What made them recognizeable as women religious was that long before they traveled beyond India, Mother Teresa was already famous. Otherwise, to the European and American, these would have been Indian women, not women religious.

Sisters have a lot of flexibility that nuns do not have. They choose their ministry, write their own constitutions, decide how to govern themselves, decide how austere their poverty shall be and they can move around the globe, because they are not attached to one house. Nuns are usually attached, for life, to the monastery where they make vows. The only time a nun moves to another house is to start a new foundation. They don’t get transferred every couple of years like sisters.

Some communities of nuns are so strict about the separation between them and the rest of the world that they do not allow you to see them. They speak to you through a curtain or a grill. Other communities of nuns, such as the Poor Clares, have a more fexible enclosure. They appear on TV or they travel to special events such as WYD. Some Visitation nuns run schools on their monastery grounds or even take in the sick. But they are attached to that house and rarely leave it.

The world of women religious is fascinating. The Coouncil of Major Superiors of Women Religious recently put out a very good book about sisters, The Foundations of Religious Life: Revisitng the Vision. It’s very well written. Much of what they say about women religious also applies to male religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Faustina123]

It’s not about you giving him something, but about you letting him take what he wants and accepting what he gives."

Excellent advice for all of us

 

[barb_finnegan]

Brother JR @ 6:33 pm-I was reading the last paragraph in your post; you know, the one about marriage. It made me feel rather inadequate because I’ve never been married, and have had no desire to do so. I respect marriage as a sacrament of the Catholic Church and a human institution. But personally, I never felt any attraction to it.

So what does a middle-aged spinster like me (56 years old) do? Where is ‘my place’ in the ‘Church’s scheme of things’? I once thought of religious life when I was in my late teens to mid twenties (Discalced Carmelites). Didn’t happen-the superior at the monastery I was corresponding with said that I ‘had a love and a loyalty to the Order, but not a vocation.’ From my late 20s through my 40s I had ‘been there, done that’ with two Third Orders in succession: Franciscans, then Discalced Carmelites. Walked out of the first after a disagreement with the direction the group was taking, and was asked to leave the second after a lot of grueling questioning both verbal and written by the directors in charge of formation.

I feel that I’m better off alone-most of the time, that’s how I live right now. I’ve been ‘burned’ too many times by groups–I’ve always been disappointed in them.

To sum up, I respect and honor marriage, but had no wish to be married. So I think that your comment about those of us who have never married being considered as ‘weak’ candidates for priesthood / religious life owes an apology. It’s hard enough as it is being ‘older’ and single out here in the world. We shouldn’t be thought of as ‘nobodies’ or ‘odd’ just because we didn’t get married and breed a lot of kids!

I know that I sound a little angry-and maybe this IS a bit of a rant-but I DO like reading your posts, dear Brother. Just stop making generalities about those of us out here who are ‘doomed’ to be single and alone, OK?

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

I realize it is off-topic, but Barb is speaking about single people in the Church and wondering, Br. JR, what you think of their position.

I am wondering also what you think of people who want to be religious but don’t have the right qualifications. (Me, for instance…did not pass the psych evals…) What on Earth does God/the Church think about people like me? I certainly know that I am defective and flawed and never deserved to be called to religious life. I still want to know what the Chruch thinks of me and what God thinks of me. Maybe you have some knowledge from your experiences in choosing who does and does not enter in your community.

 

[VeroNihilVerius]

Brother JR @ 6:33 pm-I was reading the last paragraph in your post; you know, the one about marriage. It made me feel rather inadequate because I’ve never been married, and have had no desire to do so. I respect marriage as a sacrament of the Catholic Church and a human institution. But personally, I never felt any attraction to it.

So what does a middle-aged spinster like me (56 years old) do? Where is ‘my place’ in the ‘Church’s scheme of things’? I once thought of religious life when I was in my late teens to mid twenties (Discalced Carmelites). Didn’t happen-the superior at the monastery I was corresponding with said that I ‘had a love and a loyalty to the Order, but not a vocation.’ From my late 20s through my 40s I had ‘been there, done that’ with two Third Orders in succession: Franciscans, then Discalced Carmelites. Walked out of the first after a disagreement with the direction the group was taking, and was asked to leave the second after a lot of grueling questioning both verbal and written by the directors in charge of formation.

I feel that I’m better off alone-most of the time, that’s how I live right now. I’ve been ‘burned’ too many times by groups–I’ve always been disappointed in them.

To sum up, I respect and honor marriage, but had no wish to be married. So I think that your comment about those of us who have never married being considered as ‘weak’ candidates for priesthood / religious life owes an apology. It’s hard enough as it is being ‘older’ and single out here in the world. We shouldn’t be thought of as ‘nobodies’ or ‘odd’ just because we didn’t get married and breed a lot of kids!

I know that I sound a little angry-and maybe this IS a bit of a rant-but I DO like reading your posts, dear Brother. Just stop making generalities about those of us out here who are ‘doomed’ to be single and alone, OK?

To be fair, I don’t think what he said even remotely applied to the single state of life as a vocation. What I mean is best explained by focusing on what he directly said:

A man or a woman who can be a good spouse and parent, makes the best celibate, because this person has a real understanding of what he or she is giving to God. The person who lacks the gift to be a good spouse and parent or the person who does not even realize what an awesome gift marriage and parenting is, makes a shaky religious or priest.

Note that he said "who can be a good spouse and parent. That does not mean that they went down that road, but at least had an appreciation for that state. I believe (forgive my ignorance if I am wrong, Br. Jay) that he was trying to say that a greater love for and understanding of marriage effectively translates to a greater love for the priesthood & religious life, particularly in regards to celibacy. This would not, in fact, detract from the single vocation. If one were living a celibate life in the world, even without publicly professed vows, this offering of one’s life-giving potential to God would still be valuable and a good for the whole church.

Br. Jay, I apologize if I have stepped out of line!

+VNV+

 

[joandarc2008]

To be fair, I don’t think what he said even remotely applied to the single state of life as a vocation. What I mean is best explained by focusing on what he directly said:

Note that he said "who can be a good spouse and parent. That does not mean that they went down that road, but at least had an appreciation for that state. I believe (forgive my ignorance if I am wrong, Br. Jay) that he was trying to say that a greater love for and understanding of marriage effectively translates to a greater love for the priesthood & religious life, particularly in regards to celibacy. This would not, in fact, detract from the single vocation. If one were living a celibate life in the world, even without publicly professed vows, this offering of one’s life-giving potential to God would still be valuable and a good for the whole church.

Br. Jay, I apologize if I have stepped out of line!

+VNV+

Br Jay,

Please also forgive me if I step out of place - this is my personal opinion -

I think the important thing is that we each find our own niche based on God’s calling to us based on His gifts to us and how we express them in our Vocation or vocation joyously. The joyously is the important part of this statement. If we go through life as a melancholy group then who will want join us - what kind of evangelization is that - sin looks darn attractive. But if we find joy in the Communion of Mary, the Saints, and the Angels then no matter what kind of Vocation or vocation we have someone will want to reach out and emulate us somewhere and we have Evangelized for both Christ and His Bride, the Church.

 

[JReducation]

To be fair, I don’t think what he said even remotely applied to the single state of life as a vocation. What I mean is best explained by focusing on what he directly said:

Note that he said "who can be a good spouse and parent. That does not mean that they went down that road, but at least had an appreciation for that state. I believe (forgive my ignorance if I am wrong, Br. Jay) that he was trying to say that a greater love for and understanding of marriage effectively translates to a greater love for the priesthood & religious life, particularly in regards to celibacy. This would not, in fact, detract from the single vocation. If one were living a celibate life in the world, even without publicly professed vows, this offering of one’s life-giving potential to God would still be valuable and a good for the whole church.

Br. Jay, I apologize if I have stepped out of line!

+VNV+

You have captured it very well. Thank you. I was not speaking about those who are married, I’m speaking about those who understand what marriage is about. Heck, there are many married people who don’t have a clue what marriage is about. When their marriage goes into crisis mode, they don’t understand why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Br Jay,

Please also forgive me if I step out of place - this is my personal opinion -

I think the important thing is that we each find our own niche based on God’s calling to us based on His gifts to us and how we express them in our Vocation or vocation joyously. The joyously is the important part of this statement. If we go through life as a melancholy group then who will want join us - what kind of evangelization is that - sin looks darn attractive. But if we find joy in the Communion of Mary, the Saints, and the Angels then no matter what kind of Vocation or vocation we have someone will want to reach out and emulate us somewhere and we have Evangelized for both Christ and His Bride, the Church.

Yoiu have hit an important point here. God will never call us where we canno go. God wants us to be happy. Remember the answer to the third or fourth question in the Baltimore Catechism, “Why did God make you?”

Part of that answer was “to be happy”. Unfortunately, the Baltimore Catechism was written in American English. Had it been written in one of the Romance Languages, the word happy does not exist. It would have had to use “felxi” or some derrivative of it. Felix (short e) means filled with joy. God made us to be filled with joy. We may be miserable because we’re sick, old, unemployed, you name it . . . and we can be filled with joy, because we are where we belong.

Remember people like Mother Teresa, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross and many others who went through the Dark Night to one extent or the other. They were miserable, because they did not experience the consolation of God’s presence. But the thought of being in the Night, because it was God’s will for them, filled them with joy. They always said, that if this was what God wanted, they would endure it for eternity only to please the Beloved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

I think I am being a pest, but I do think that you might have insights that you could share with me, Brother JR in light of my question above. (Not trying to bug you, just thought maybe you accidentally skipped over my question and forgot to answer.) It seems like this is something a religious could answer better than a lay person. Thank you!

 

[CDNowak]

You know, during the several years that I have been on CAF, I have known several priests, brothers, sisters and one nun who tried to post on these vocation threads. We all know each other. I know two who know another three and those know about three more. It’s like a little network. The one thing that we often share via PMs, when we can speak to each other by first names, is the fact that people post on the vocation forums, but they don’t seem to pay attention to what we’re saying. This is very frustrating, to the point that several of these men and women who really want to promote vocations to their diocese, their orders or the priesthood and religious life in general, often feel that they cannot do so on this forum.

snip<

As, perhaps, one of the posters who sparked this comment (or at least, I resemble the remarks):

Perhaps internet forums aren’t the best place for this type of interaction? I think it is great that there are religious and clergy on the vocations forums, but they do perhaps the most good simply by making themselves available for someone who has developed a relationship (usually of admiration of their posts) them to ask a direct question. It is not the quibbling over every use of “order” vs “congregation” (good background information, but plays at best a little part in active discernment), but the example as much as can be shown through mere words, and the apparent underlying attitudes, that actually promote interest in particular orders.

For Example:
Personally in my (rather tumultuous) discernment, I needed a fair amount of space from religious and priests outside Real Life contacts (and even there I limited the advice I listened to outside my own directors and parish priests).
A true child of the Information Revolution, I have trained my brain to sift massive amounts of data…, rejecting the majority of claims of authority or status on the internet, because nearly that many are false. (Not that I think there are many false claims here on CAF, but I’m online: therefore the mental firewall is up).

The purpose I did go to another forum for was to work out what the informal, personal matters of some aspects of my particular vocation and to, for lack of a better term, simply “be” with others who were discerning (with all the debates, crazy new “foundations”, and heresies invented there). I have yet to meet an enthusiastic group of seminarians that wasn’t constantly weighing the most serious questions in almost irreverent manner. The questions we asked were too dangerous, too real, too immediate and simultaneously too transcendent, to be faced on a mere factual basis. Little things like fact that we dared seek what many saints thought should not be sought, that others fled, that still others took on only under obedience: Ordination.
If I needed advice that I couldn’t get locally, I would go into a more serious spirituality forum, or contact someone off board.

Also, there were many times where I was overwhelmed with the salesmanship many Vocations directors thought was necessary to attract attention (Yes, poor priests of W-C, we only stopped for the lovely freshed baked cookies…).

 

[JReducation]

I realize it is off-topic, but Barb is speaking about single people in the Church and wondering, Br. JR, what you think of their position.

I am wondering also what you think of people who want to be religious but don’t have the right qualifications. (Me, for instance…did not pass the psych evals…) What on Earth does God/the Church think about people like me? I certainly know that I am defective and flawed and never deserved to be called to religious life. I still want to know what the Chruch thinks of me and what God thinks of me. Maybe you have some knowledge from your experiences in choosing who does and does not enter in your community.

I’ll start with what may already be very obvious. God loves all of his sons and daughters and wants to save them. Ultimately, entering religious life or becoming a diocesan priest is a means to salvation. When situations arise where one is impaired because one does not meet the “admission requirements” the Church’s understanding is that the impairment is part of God’s way of pointing us in another direction where we can work out our salvation.

God does not want a woman to be a sister and lose her soul. He rather that she be single or married and become a saint.

God does not work against our nature, but with it. If my health, personality, age, intellect or whatever is such that it will make it difficult for me to fulfill the duties of the consecrated life or the priesthood, then I don’t belong there. To serve God is to fulfill the duties of the present moment. God will always lead me to that place where I can be fruitful. Only when I am fruitful am I holy.

Fruitful does not mean having children. It means good fruits of charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

God does not want a woman to be a sister and lose her soul. He rather that she be single or married and become a saint.

QUOTE]

Is your answer basically that the Church thinks I would be a bad sister? Obviously that is upsetting. I am not disagreeing that I should be a religious because I do trust the discernment of the sisters. Rather I am just at the end of my rope with all of this rejection, especially as it seems to come straight from God Himself.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, Br JR. I appreciate your wisdom.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;7178079:

God does not want a woman to be a sister and lose her soul. He rather that she be single or married and become a saint.

QUOTE]

Is your answer basically that the Church thinks I would be a bad sister? Obviously that is upsetting. I am not disagreeing that I should be a religious because I do trust the discernment of the sisters. Rather I am just at the end of my rope with all of this rejection, especially as it seems to come straight from God Himself.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, Br JR. I appreciate your wisdom.

NO NO NO, don’t ever take it as as rejection. Check out the story of S. Joseph Labre. God walks us down winding paths because he knows that we are sanctified each step of the way. During the moments when we believe that we have been rejected by God is actually when we are closest to him, because we are experiencing he rejection that Jesus experienced on the cross.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KShaft]

Brother JR, in light of reading your opening post, let me say that I totally agree with you.
Second, could you please tell me about becoming a Priest? A Parish Priest please. Thats all I care about…

Okay seriously, this isnt so much about different vocations per se. This is just the culture. It regards less and less tradition and knowledge and wisdom from people who have been there and done that. It is a culture of entitlement and “what are you going to do for me” so being snubbed by young know it all because they saw something on the history channel or msnbc and not being humble and listening is a typical byproduct of the secular culture that we have become in the last 40-50 years, and especially in the last 20.
We have bred some of the weakest(both mentally and physically), most fickle, godless, people in a millennia. Almost nobody listens to anyone any more no matter what their experience and knowledge is. Vanity is his favorite sin!

On a sucking up note, I always like reading your very informed threads. Id imagine that a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur go with your posts as a matter of fact! I hope you are doing well(in spite of things…).

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, in light of reading your opening post, let me say that I totally agree with you.
Second, could you please tell me about becoming a Priest? A Parish Priest please. Thats all I care about…

Okay seriously, this isnt so much about different vocations per se. This is just the culture. It regards less and less tradition and knowledge and wisdom from people who have been there and done that. It is a culture of entitlement and “what are you going to do for me” so being snubbed by young know it all because they saw something on the history channel or msnbc and not being humble and listening is a typical byproduct of the secular culture that we have become in the last 40-50 years, and especially in the last 20.
We have bred some of the weakest(both mentally and physically), most fickle, godless, people in a millennia. Almost nobody listens to anyone any more no matter what their experience and knowledge is. Vanity is his favorite sin!

On a sucking up note, I always like reading your very informed threads. Id imagine that a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur go with your posts as a matter of fact! I hope you are doing well(in spite of things…).

LOL, considering that I have never posted anything against the faith or morals of the Catholic Curch, I guess I can submit my posts for a Nihil Obstat and Imprmature. That’s what these signatures mean.

OK, passing from silly to more serious. I’m not sure what you want to know about becoming a parish priest. I’ll take a crack at it.

If you’re feel that Christ is calling you to be a parish priest, pure and simple, obviously he’s not calling you to join a religious community, make vows and follow a stable way of life, not to say that diocesan priests are not stable people. A stable life is the term that the Church uses to described religious life vs secular life. It’s stable, because it is an ordered life or governed by a rule.

The secular priest has no such a rule. As I posted before, he writes his own rule of life for himself. The journey begins with the belief that one has been called by Christ into his priesthood. The next step is to test that belief. Most men would apply to the diocese where they live. However, there is nothing in canon law that says that you may not apply to another diocese. Canon law does say that your bishop must give permission for you to join another diocese. The vocation director of the diocese to which you apply will walk you through the process. It’s like getting married in a parish other than your own. Because you fall under the bishop’s jurisdiction, another bishop cannot accept you into his seminary without the consent of your bishop. It’s good manners. I have never heard of a bishop refusing permission to go to another diocese. I guess he can forbid it. I don’t think that it’s ever done.

Every diocese has it’s requirements. Some require that you finish college on your own, with a degree in philosophy or the equivalent in credits. That’s because some men already have degrees. They go back to get the philosophy courses that they need and any undergraduate theology courses that the major seminary will require.

You must remember that the major seminary is really a graduate school. Like all graduate schoos, they have prerequisites for admission and requirements for graduation. The typical formation for a diocesan priest includes an undergraduate degree in philosophy, as I said and a Master of Divinity. The Master of Divinity is not the same as a Master of Theology. The Master of Theoogy is a shorter degree. The Master of Divinity is a four-year degree. It is a practical degree. The program of studies is balanced between theology and pastoral courses. It prepares you to go into ministry. Some seminaries offer a Master of Arts in Theology. This too is a four-year degree. This degree is a research degree. It’s usually a prerequisite fo a PhD in theology. It is not necessary for a parish priest. This is usually for those who are going to be theologians. Though most theologians go for the STL and then the STD, which are ecclesial degrees.

Some dioceses ordain their fourth-year students to the Order of Deacon and others wait until you graduate. Normally, a man is a deacon for a year. He is assigned to a parish as an associate or some other title. This is also known as a transitional deacon.

The term “transitional deacon” can be misleading. It can be misinterpreted to mean that a man ceases to be a deacon once he is ordained a priest. This is not true. There are three orders in the Sacrament of Holy Orders: diaconate, presbyter and bishop. The priest is both a presbyter and a deacon. That’s why in the EF you often see a priest serve as a deacon. The term transitional means that the cleric will be ordained a priest at the appropriate time.

At the ordination to the diaconate, the candidate is asked to promise obedience to his bishop. This promise is not to be confused with the vow of obedience made by religious. It is a pomise not a vow. Obedience is limited to ministry. The bishop does not have the same authority over the clerics under him as a religious superior has over his or her religious. For example, bishops do not dictate your daily life. You are responsible for that. They do not guide or control what you do with your time when you’re off duty. Nonetheless, bishops do have policiies about proper behavior that the expect from their men. They really expect their men to be good exemplary Catholics.

 

[JReducation]

Also, at the time of ordination to the diaconate, the man makes a promise of celibacy. This should not be confused with the vow of chastity made by religious. The vow of chastity includes celibacy, but also includes community living. The promise of celibacy does not include community living. Therefore, the diocesan cleric remains a member of his biological family, unlike the religious who becomes a member of his religious family when he or she makes a vow of chastity. The promise of celibacy can only be dispensed by the pope.

If a cleric attempts marriage without a dispensation from the promise of celibacy, the marriage is ilicit and invalid and excommunicates himself. The Church does not have to do anything.

If a man chooses not to be ordained a priest, after he has been ordained a deacon, he must do one of two things: a) ask for a dispensation from the promises of celibacy and obedience or b) request permission to become a permanent deacon.

If he chooses to ask for a dispensation and the dispensation is granted, he is a laicized. This does not mea that he becomes layman. Once ordained deacon, he is a cleric and will never be a layman again. But he may live as a layman, which means that he can get married in the Church.

If he chooses to remain a permanent deacon and the permission is granted, he may not marry. He has already made a promise of celibacy. None of the Apostolic Church, Catholic and Orthodox, allow ordained men who are active to get married.

After the period of diaconate is completed, the bishop will then ordain the candidate to the priesthood.

The term parish priest can be misleading, because not all ordained men are assigned to parishes. The bishop may assign you to whatever ministry he feels is necessary. Some priests are never assigned to parishes. They are assigned to teach, hospitals, chaplaincies, retreat ministry, or preaching from place to place. Others are assigned to adminisrtion, such as working at the chancery.

The diocesan priest receives a salary. Because he does not make a vow of poverty, he may own property and be a millionaire. The only thing that the Churc asks is that he live a simple life; but the simple life of a diocesan priest is not the austere life of a Capuchin or some other Franciscan. For example, the Archbishop of Miami rides a Harley. I think that’s what they call those big motorcycles. He’s an awesome man and a very holy man too. He just likes his bike.

Diocesan priests pay taxes, like any other citizen. They pay their own FICA, all of it, not just half of it like most employees. Dioceses offer their men an insurance package and a retirement plan. Nonetheless, these retirement plans are not very big. You have to provide for your retirement. Unlike a religious, who is a member of family that takes care of him until he dies, the diocesan priest remains a secular man. Therefore, he depends on his resources when he retires or if he becomes disabled and can no longer work. Many priests will live in an apartment, condo or a home of their own when they retire or they may live with their family. Obviously, if they cannot care for themselves, they live in assisted lving facilities or nursing homes. The diocese helps them find a good place. But they are free to choose where they will live.

Most parish priests live at the rectory, but some may own their homes and travel back and forth. That will depend on the bishop. I’ve known diocesan priests who own a home, but live in the rectory when they’re on duty and go to their home on their day off. Others, go to their family, if the family lives in the area.

The pastor is the boss, but he is not the supeior. He has authority over the work that the priest does, not over his personal life. For example, a pastor cannot call a priest in for not praying enough. A religious superior can do this, but not a pastor. Nor can the pastor demand that the parish priest participate in common life. Most parish priests, if there are more than one in the house, will eat together at least on some days and may even pray together. But this is not written in stone. Remember, they are not consecrated religious or members of an institute. The common life is very flexible. In some rectories there is more community and in other there is none, men come and go.

He also has other freedoms. When he is not on duty, his time is his own. People don’t always know this and believe that a priest is on duty 24/7. This is not true. They have a schedule like everyone else. They have a day off, vacations and they have an office schedule. Contrary to popular belief, they do not have to celebrate daily mass, unless he’s the only priest in the parish. Obviously, he has to celebrate the daily mass. When there are several, they take turns.

The parish priest must also be a good adminstrator. Eventually, he will become a pastor. He is responsible for the welfare of his parish. He not only takes care of the sacramental needs of the parish, but he is the financial administrator, the personell director, the manager and other administrative functions. Today, with the presence of permanent deacons, many pastors assign some of these tasks to them.

The most important part of all of this is prayer. Every priest, whether he belongs to a religious community or is a secular priest must be a man of prayer. Without prayer, he will be a failure.

I don’t know if this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

We have bred some of the weakest(both mentally and physically), most fickle, godless, people in a millennia.

Just a bit in defense of the “weakest” generation- many of us did not grow up in stable families with both parents at home. A lot of us were not given the chance to be born because of contraception and abortion. Many of us were exposed to violence, sexual imagery, drugs both on television, movies, etc. and in our homes at a young age. It is not exactly that we have been given a chance to thrive, yet many of us do. It might be just as easy to make statements against the way many of us were parented than it is to make such statements about us.