Youāre both in the same area. My response is to take a close look into the writings of St. Bonaventure, Bl. John Newman and Pope Benedict XVI on the subject of Theology of History.
What we find is that good things expand at different times in history, either because of necessity or because the Church wishes them to expand. We will know if the expansion is prompted by the Holy Spirit in one of two ways, says St. Bonaventure. The first is more obvious he says. Whatever the Church allows, is allowed by the Holy Spirit. The second is less obvious, the fruits produced over time. One has to allow time to pass. Bonaventure, in his Theology of History points out that time is not just a few years. He talks about centuries. You cannot test the fruit of something in less than 300 years, he says. Thatās why he says that the approval of the Church is the best and surest way, because it does not require such a long wait.
As to poor cetechesis, that should never be an excuse not to expand something that is good. In that case, the problem is not the practice, but that lack of proper education. You donāt throw out the practice, you correct the problem. Provide the education.
Finally, that which is part of religious life should never be considered foreign to the rest of the Church. Religious life exists for several reasons.
The most important is the salvation of the religious themselves.
The second reason is that it is essential to the life of the Church. The Church is incomplete without religious sisters, nuns and religious brothers. This has been taught by the Church for centuries. It is a complete vocation in itself and serves as the spiritual backbone of the Church. Through the religious the Church remains in constant prayer, penance and good works.
The third is that the laity is to look to the religious life to learn about the perfection of charity. It must never consider the religious man or woman as separated from the world. That was never the intent. The religious leaves what is worldly, meaning that which leads away from Christ, but he or she remains very much a part of the Church in the world. The religious house is a school for all Catholics, even when there are some religious who are problem children. We can even learn from them.
Having said all that, there is one thing that is very important here. When you bring something from the cloister into the parish, you need to teach it well. This is not always the case. I have seen it with the Liturgy of the Hours. I have seen parishes start it one or two evenings a week, but never instructed the laity. Most laymen do not know that the Divine Office is as much liturgy as the is the mass.
Most laymen know little or nothing about the LOTH, just look at how many silly questions people ask about the breviary on CAF. Everyone wants the ātraditionalā breviary. In 1962, there were 27 versions of the breviary. Which one is traditional?
The most common one was the Roman Breviary, simply because it was used by diocesan priests, who outnumber brothers and regular priests.
But when you bring these things into a parish and you donāt teach it, you donāt get the desired results. The same has happened with women reading at mass or serving as EMHC or women administering parishes. People do not know that this has been done for centuries and have not been taught how to do it well.
I live in a diocese where the chancellor is a woman. Sheās a religious. She knows how to run a diocese and does very well. There is not a single priest or brother in the diocese who can do the job as well as she does. If it were assigned to a laywoman, Iām not so sure that it would be the same. Laywomen are not less intelligent than women religious. Itās just the fact that laywomen do not have the exposure to certain things that women religious have. You canāt just throw a laywoman into a role without the proper formation. I will agree with that.
If the problem is formation, letās fix the problem, not tell the ladies to shut up and sit down.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
