The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionA critic of ministerial religious life
by Richard McBrien on Nov. 09, 2009
Sandra Schneiders is a member of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Monroe, Mich., and is professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, California.
Her four-page article in the Oct 2 issue of the National Catholic Reporter is the best, most compact, and most significant study of the biblical and historical foundations of ministerial religious life available today.
Anyone who claims to have an opinion about the current "visitation" of U.S. communities of religious women and the "doctrinal assessment" of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious has a serious obligation to read this article.
As Schneiders notes at the outset of her substantial essay, too many critics of religious life in the United States "have no lived experience of or academic competence" in regard to it.
For her, it is crucial to recognize the distinction between monastic and ministerial religious life. Both are legitimate forms of religious life, but they are also different from one another. To collapse them into a single, "correct" form of religious life is to make an error of major proportions.
Monastic religious life is marked by three features: habit, enclosure, and horarium. Those who are prone to judge all forms of religious life by the monastic model are sure to find things to criticize in contemporary expressions of religious life, especially, but certainly not exclusively, in the United States.
A crucially important point that Schneiders' article makes is that the monastic model of religious life has analogues in many other religious and spiritual traditions, both before and after the appearance of Christian monasticism. Ministerial religious life, on the other hand, is a reality entirely new to the world, and it was introduced by Christianity alone.
Monasticism developed in Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries in the East, and in the sixth century in the West.
"Prior to the development of the monastic life in Christianity," she writes, "there were other forms of consecrated life that were non-monastic, e.g., professed consecrated virginity lived non-monastically within early Christian communities and solitary hermit life in the desert."
Once it developed, however, the monastic version of Christian religious life became the predominant, but not exclusive, form in the Western Church from roughly 500 to 1500.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
It was not the "exclusive" form of religious life because the mendicant orders (Franciscans and Dominicans, for example) were founded in the High Middle Ages and introduced the element of itinerancy, that is, the need to move outside the monastic enclosure in order to engage in ministerial activities on behalf of the sick, the poor, pilgrims, students, and the like.
"The most striking departure from the monastic model, beginning in the 16th century," Schneiders reports, "occurred in the clerical apostolic orders/congregations such as the Jesuits and Redemptorists."
The "sharpest and most substantial break from monasticism" came about when the Jesuits decided not to pray the Divine Office in common because it was not compatible with their apostolic vocation.
By this time, monastic habits in these clerical orders had given way to more ordinary clerical or contemporary attire, or were restricted to use in the houses of residence. Thus, the photographs of some of the first bishops and priests of the United States showed them in ordinary secular dress rather than the Roman collar.
It is of great importance to note, however, that the same latitude was not extended to religious communities of women. Pope Boniface VIII declared in 1298 that all women religious had to observe cloister under pain of excommunication, and this restriction was confirmed almost four centuries later by the Council of Trent.
"In other words," Schneiders writes, "monasticism was the only recognized legitimate form of religious life for women."
Why the double standard? Schneiders suggests, with much credibility, that the official Church's restrictions on the freedom of women religious has reflected a misogynistic bias. Thus, women always have to be under male control, whether in their public appearances, in financial matters, in their dress and types of residency, and even in their spiritual lives.
She points out how, in earlier centuries, founders and foundresses of religious congregations of women, such as the Daughters of Charity, tried to get around the Church's official restrictions by declaring their communities "not religious."
But most other communities actively fought the restrictions and struggled to be recognized as religious while refusing to renounce their vocations to ministry.
"Many people," she writes, "have expressed the suspicion that the current investigation of noncloistered women religious in the United States is another spasm of this misogynistic agenda."
More next week.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
And who are we to dispute
And who are we to dispute that most holy Council of Trent? It seems to me that prior to the Council & for some time afterwards, the ministerial model did include the monastic as well. Whether it be brothers or sisters, they had habits, lived in community together with a common apostolate & had the common prayer life in community.
Then for the nuns, the habits were abandoned & so was the community as well as the common apostolate in time. Nuns lived in apartments in secular dress as the new model. Well, then there were many defections and few new postulants. It was a prescription for disaster. The median age of these orders kept going up which meant a shrinking of financial resources. This comment should not be taken as ageism in any way. It is just an actuarial fact that older people retire or die sooner than younger people do.
Paulte asks, "And who are we
Paulte asks, "And who are we to dispute that most holy Council of Trent? "
Answer - when the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer work of function adequately toward spreading the gospel message. Do you really believe that a sister sans habit ministering to the outcasts and poor of society has no chance of succeeding if she doesn't wear a habit? Come on. Baloney.
paulte on Nov. 09, 2009. You
paulte on Nov. 09, 2009.
You stated:
"And who are we to dispute that most holy Council of Trent? It seems to me that prior to the Council & for some time afterwards, the ministerial model did include the monastic as well. Whether it be brothers or sisters, they had habits, lived in community together with a common apostolate & had the common prayer life in community.
Then for the nuns, the habits were abandoned & so was the community as well as the common apostolate in time. Nuns lived in apartments in secular dress as the new model. Well, then there were many defections and few new postulants. It was a prescription for disaster. The median age of these orders kept going up which meant a shrinking of financial resources. This comment should not be taken as ageism in any way. It is just an actuarial fact that older people retire or die sooner than younger people do."
--------------------------------------
You do not know the difference between religious who are bound by solomn vows
(monastics---nuns) and those bound by simple vows (active orders---sisters).
Nor do you understand the stressed intention of many of the founders of women's religious orders. You do not have their letters, journels, papers---nothing. But you keep on stressing that all religious women were/should be like monastics. That's like saying that lawn mowers and violins are the same, because they are both instruments.
But of course, paulte, in your infinite wisdom---you know the history of each and every religious community and congregation. And you have read all of the papers, letters of each and every founder and foundress---and know exactly what they wanted to see their community become. Yeah, and the cow just jumped over the moon for a second time.
Excuse me but what I said was
Excuse me but what I said was that the ministerial orders like teachers still kept an aspect of the monastic.
a) common habit
b) living in community
c) common apostolate
d) common prayer life
And as far as vows go, the main three (poverty, chastity & obedience) are the same for all vowed religious.
Further, if you actually read the documents of Vatican II, you will see that on the Religious Life, the document just spoke about the habit (simple, modest, poor, appealing). The habit was a given in that document. There was no question as to whether or not it should exist. This is a good example of the dishonesty of the modern nuns in their civilian clothes. They are not following the Council they endlessly invoke!
paultre pronounces: "And as
paultre pronounces: "And as far as vows go, the main three (poverty, chastity & obedience) are the same for all vowed religious."
gosh and here all along I thought we Benedictines had vows of stability and conversion of ways.
Does this mean I can hit the road now like some Franciscan pilgrim or something?
leaving tomorrow, I remain
just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
I must agree with you paulte
I must agree with you paulte in this particular posting (as surprised as I am!). There have been, in fact, a number of variations between the monastic and ministerial orders of women religious. Until Vatican II, all of the orders I am familiar with did indeed live in common with a common habit, had mostly a single apostolate (i.e., teaching)and maintained a common prayer life. This has since changed and, in my opinion, much for the better even if the most consertative members (such as yourself) do not agree. And it is correct that Vatican II never advocated for not wearing a religious habit, but, rather, for updating the habit so it was better suited for the work and times of the order. One other point I will add to this: when I was in religious life, and studied the theology of that calling, an interesting point was raised in my readings. A major theological reason for the consecrated life is to bear witness to the Second Coming of Christ - and that one of the ways a religious individual exemplified this committment to witness was through symbols, the religious habit being the main symbol employed by the Church and particularly by the professed members of orders, communities and institutes. It makes for a reasonable case, I think, that the religious habit is indeed an expression of the consecrated committment of religious men and women, and should be re-evaluated in that light. But again, it is not necessary in order to do Christ's work!
I don't maintain the habit is
I don't maintain the habit is necessary to do good in the world. Generally, you can tell a very religious or good person by looking in their eyes. There tends to be a sparkle. The point of the habit is humility & community, I think. I would not go so far as to say it must be maintained in religious life but there must be some valid reason to discard this tradition and I have never heard one.
paulte on Nov. 10, 2009. You
paulte on Nov. 10, 2009.
You stated:
"Excuse me but what I said was that the ministerial orders like teachers still kept an aspect of the monastic.
a) common habit
b) living in community
c) common apostolate
d) common prayer life...."
-----------------------------------------
Excuse me, Paulte----BUT life Today is not like it was 50 years ago. Because only one Sister may be working in a hospital---she may not live with other Sisters. And common apostolates are not that common any more. It IS very common to have 4 religious living together and all 4 do different ministries.
Common prayers---yes most of the time----but ministries today require different hours than the 9-5 hours. There are more evening activities, evening meetings, and week-end activities (many of them) that everyday common prayer is not always possible. This is true if Sisters are driving long distances to and from their ministries. We have long ago passed the stage when the ministry was right next door.
Why is this? Because ministries try to reach the people that are being served today (not those of yesteryear). Men and women both work, and they work late, go early work shifts and not everyone is off on week-ends.
Schools have closed (families have fewer children, parishes cannot affort to pay teachers' salaries and BENEFITS and many are closed). The numbers of Sisters in school today are very low. Many Sisters, who are elderly, can serve as receptionists, but not be in school all day. And many parents (and children) do not want an elderly Sister teaching them all day. And many elderly Sisters do not have the energy to teach children all day. Although my high school teacher, (a Sister 92 years old) just retired this year from tutoring, and being a part time librarian. She said she's tired---misses the kids---but is tired---had enough.
Secondly, Vatican II used the word "habit" because there was no other word to use at the time (remember the documents were first written in Latin). In many religious orders, the item that MUST be worn is a Congregational symbol, be it a crucifix, or a special medal of the congregation, and the Sisters' ring of final vows. And that is it.
Finally, what constitutes the "habit" is up to the Religious Congregation and only the Religious Congregation to decide. No man, not the Pope, or any other man is going to tell religious women what they are to wear.
The most holy Vatican II
The most holy Vatican II council disputes the most holy Council of Trent. It may take a few centuries but even the Catholic Church is allowed to change its mind.
Have you actually read the
Have you actually read the decrees of each Council? By your statement, I will assume you have not.
Father McBrien's column was a
Father McBrien's column was a very well written attempt to show that there is a difference between cloistered religious women [nuns] and ministerial religious women [sisters]; a distinction you obviously still don't grasp.
However, lets take your point and apply it to the ministerial priesthood....
Nothing much changed for the priests lifestyle. They still wore clericals and went about their ministry and their numbers are still going down. Maybe the answer for them is cloister... they are not all monks and do not all wear a habit. How about if we make them do that and then we will put them all in a monastery and see if that helps the severe priest shortage.
Your logic is flawed, but you have lots of company.
Who are we NOT to dispute the
Who are we NOT to dispute the Council of Trent? I did not surrender my intellect - or any other faculty - at baptism.
But you should have. To
But you should have. To surrender the intellect to truth is a beautiful and necessary thing. We need to do this to begin and grow spiritually. Listen to St Ignatious of Loyola in his prayer Oblatio Sui: "Take, O Lord, and receive my entire liberty, my memory, my intellect and my whole will." We can trust that the Church will feed our intellects truth. Its okay and proper to abandon the intellect to the teachings of an ecumenical council.
Ray, St Ignatius prayed "Take
Ray, St Ignatius prayed "Take Oh Lord", not take Oh church. There is a real difference even though some people don't want to believe it or see it.
"We can trust that the Church
"We can trust that the Church will feed our intellects truth."
In your response, who/what is "the Church"?
"It's OK and proper to abandon the intellect to the teachings of an ecumenical council."
Teachings are one thing. Their interpretation and application can be another thing altogether. This can be especially contentious if the bishops proclaim a non-infallible doctrine that is taken in some quarters as being infallible.
Given the generally higher levels of education today, not to mention problems associated with our bishops (coverups, lies, intimidation of victims/advocates, etc., as well as cozy episcopal alliances with the more conservative elements of the socioeconomic world), can any thinking Catholic put stock in your assertion that "the Church will feed our intellects truth"?
Somewhere in the gospels is a Jesus who advises his disciples to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing.
"Its okay and proper to
"Its okay and proper to abandon the intellect to the teachings of an ecumenical council",really? One who abandons one's intellect is either a fool or the victim of critical brain injury. In the realm of mysticism, where Ignatius dwelt I accept that a kind of experience/revelation (knowledge-intellect)might well elicit a decision or judgement of "abandonment" of sorts, but it requires "judgment", active decision to accept, acknowledge that is concomitant with intellect.
Humbly the Reverend Father
Humbly the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien bows to the article of fellow great professor of Roman Catholic theology, the Reverend Sister Sandra Schneiders, and urges us all to go back and to read her comprehensive article essential to understanding our current zeitgeist.
The small codicil which must most deeply touch my own heart and soul of course is this:
"Prior to the development of the monastic life in Christianity," she writes, "there were other forms of consecrated life that were non-monastic, e.g., professed consecrated virginity lived non-monastically within early Christian communities and solitary hermit life in the desert."
I feel at this time we have come once more to a point in which the only possible means of moving on and surviving and discovering conversion and the Real Presence may be this "solitary hermit life in the desert." We have returned to a point in which Benedict of Nursia fled Rome for the mountains of Subiaco, writing the Rule upon which Western Civilization proceeds.
Jesus warned us when these days come to head for the hills. Come to the desert, among the most poor and forgotten and rejected.
I thank God each day for the continued and real Eucharistic presence in my life and in my heart not only of the great spiritual masters upon these pages (I shall not now, to avoid the ridicule I have received elsewhere, go into details upon this point from those who have no idea, but I know their real presence guides and strengthens me at each moment while I have the wisdom to hear), but also for our last great desert hermit: the Blessed Brother Charles de Foucauld. I am very grateful to these ncronline pages for holding even me together as much as possible, like a dried old wineskin.
I think it is very important as well for each one of us to contemplate with greatest honesty and humility this line:
'As Schneiders notes at the outset of her substantial essay, too many critics of religious life in the United States "have no lived experience of or academic competence" in regard to it.'
As Jesus invited his followers: Come apart, to a solitary place. Live the life. Study it truthfully and fully. And discover yourself too busy in God's vineyard to carp about the cut of another's hem not fitting what you once saw in a movie or on cable tv.
rather let us pray all together for peace, with justice ("If you want peace, work for justice" -PP Paul VI) and work hard for it, within ourselves and within our families and society and world, and pray, as does Our Holy Father Saint Benedict near the end of the Rule For Monks, that we all get there together.
It's the only way we can. Altogether. Do not increase the burden another bears, but lighten one another's loads, and so fulfill the Law of Christ.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Well put frere charles. I
Well put frere charles. I say Amen.
Rules. Rules. Rules. Jesus
Rules. Rules. Rules. Jesus had a hissy fit over making them more than important than love of God and love of neighbor!
These women showed love of neighbor!
love your enemy do good to
love your enemy
do good to those who harm you
The IHM sisters of Monroe
The IHM sisters of Monroe taught me in high school. They are wicked smart. Pay attention to what they say.
"Monastic religious life is
"Monastic religious life is marked by three features: habit, enclosure, and horarium."
When I first read this observation by Sr. Schneiders in her article, it suddenly dawned on me WHY the apostolic visitation is consciously EXCLUDING so-called "cloistered" communities of nuns (correct usage of the word NUN). They already have all 3 of these elements that the Vatican is attributing to its concern for the non-cloistered sisters' "quality of life" (code for NO habit, NO enclosure, NO horarium) and their numbers are no better -or no worse- than the LCWR (http://www.lcwr.org/) or the CMSWR (http://www.cmswr.org/) communities.
Including cloistered stats in the study would only serve to INVALIDATE the underlying premise/accusation that the LOSS OF "habit, enclosure and horarium" is the root of the problem, thus making imposed RESTORATION of these 3 elements the solution. Such a working hypothesis can then be reinforced by pointing to the apparently burgeoning FORMATION HOUSES of neo-traditional, habit-wearing, Latin-chanting, school-teaching communities of women religious.
Eventually, even the wankers at the Vatican are gonna connect the dots and figure out that it's not an either/or but a BOTH/AND situation. Given the ever-broadening spectrum of Catholics in the pews, the institution needs ALL kinds of women religious to provide the ministry that ordained "sacrament machines" can no longer feasibly accomplish. Let's pray they come to this realization before it's too late and quit the polemics and polarization, currently alienating Catholics of all stripes.
To paraphrase John 14:2,
"In my Father's CHURCH, there are many CONVENTS!"
And who are we to dispute
And who are we to dispute that "most holy" Council of Trent?
We are the people of God listening to where the Spirit is leading us.
In the last decade, the Spirit (or my own internal needs) has led me to read a lot of material written by many Christian authors and theologians. But I haven't heard the Spirit leading me to read anything about the Council of Trent. Is there anyone reading the papers from Trent other than those who have rejected the teachings of Vatican II?
You're right Fr. McBrien.
You're right Fr. McBrien. This "visitation" (Insquisiton rather) is just another excuse for the male leadership of the Church to exert their masculine superiority complex over women who have begun to think for themselves, even eclipsing and transcending the rigid idelogical definitions that have defined Roman loyalty for the past few decades. Let us all pray that the People of God will see this fluke for what it is, a self-interested witch hunt intent on eradicating any kind of progressive or alternative voices within the American Church.
BEAUTIFULLY SAID. MAY WE WHO
BEAUTIFULLY SAID. MAY WE WHO SUPPORT OUR RELIGOUS AND REALIZE THEIR LIFELONG COMMITMENT TO THE TRUE MISSION OF JESUS, NOT BE DRAWN INTO HIRARCHIAL INQUISITION & CONDEMNATION OF THE VALUABLE PLACE THEY HAVE TAKEN IN ANSWER TO THE CALLING OF VATICAN II.
SR. SANDRA IS A SOUND VOICE FOR ALL OF US WHO HAVE EMBRACED THE GIFT THEY BRING TO CHURCH AND THE WORLD. HER ARTICLE IS WELL WORTH THE READING - AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TRUE MISSION OF JESUS IN THIS WORLD.
The overlay of monasticism
The overlay of monasticism has complicated seminary life, presbyteral ministry and ministerial religious life. There is another model of discipleship, holiness and service other than the monastery.
Paulte asks: And who are we
Paulte asks:
And who are we to dispute that most holy Council of Trent?
One presumes that one might also ask:
And who are we to dispute that most holy Council of Vatican II?
Vatican II is not "most holy"
Vatican II is not "most holy" but rather, "most ambiguous"! That most holy Council of Trent ushered in centuries of stability. That "most ambiguous" & pastoral, not doctrinal, Council termed Vatican II, ushered in 40 years of upheaval & wasteland with clerics abusing children among other things!
Once again, thank you, Fr.
Once again, thank you, Fr. McBrien, for keeping us in touch with scholarly insights in the Church today.
We have real problems facing us, and I am uncomfortable with the attitude that we can all go off in our own direction - or with the attitude that the official hierarchichal Church will step in and keep all in order.
Somehow or other we must be able to work for constructive change and do it within the framework of the visible Church. We need to keep that hope alive. Thank you, Fr. McBrien, for helping.
Rev.Richard L. Allen
Neenah, WI
Sister Sandra Schneiders
Sister Sandra Schneiders gives an interesting take on what she believes is the development of religious life. However, do remember that religious life is defined not by Sister Sandra, but by the Church, and the Church is the only legitimate judge in this matter. So, in the end, it really doesn't matter what Sister Sandra Schneiders or Father McBrien thinks.
Many thanks for sharing your
Many thanks for sharing your opinion. But, please understand that there are many of us who do, indeed, think what Sister Schneiders or Father McBrien thinks matters. I also believe religious life is defined by those who live it and Sister Schneiders is living it, as are many others of her sisters. Perhaps not as you or those in Rome would like, but none-the-less they are religious in todays world.
Religious life is defined by
Religious life is defined by each sincere heart which undertakes this great voyage, the arduous labor, the sacred pilgrimage towards Peace.
It cannot be dictated by the imaginings of another, but by the Holy Spirit calling each individual heart to the Community of Peace, of Love, of Justice, of truth, of God.
The Other cannot define what to me is religious life, this walk to God.
God, the infinitely indefinable, does the defining, in Loving compassion and mercy and joy.
Let us walk therefore together and see how far we may fly, bearing one another's burdens and so fulfill the Law of Christ.
And as Our Holy Father Saint Benedict concludes the Rule for Monks: "let us all get there together to the end.
You may not define my journey. I certainly cannot. Only God can.
Let us pray through his Mother for mercy.
Our most highly Roman
Our most highly Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, reports in the latest issue of Latina:
"To find happiness in love ... we have to make up our own rules."
Spoken like a true heretic,
Spoken like a true heretic, my way not God's way.
With such names upon it as
With such names upon it as the Reverend Father John Dear, SJ, the Reverend Sister Joan Chittister OSB, the Reverend Father Richard Rohr OFM, The Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, The Reverend Father Daniel Berrigan SJ, etc., etc., etc., I am most underservedly honored to have made your "list of Dissenters" and of those you personally deem heretic, with no waiting for verification, veritas, from the Vatican.
Thank you!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
TNCath on Nov. 10, 2009. You
TNCath on Nov. 10, 2009.
You stated:
"Sister Sandra Schneiders gives an interesting take on what she believes is the development of religious life. However, do remember that religious life is defined not by Sister Sandra, but by the Church, and the Church is the only legitimate judge in this matter. So, in the end, it really doesn't matter what Sister Sandra Schneiders or Father McBrien thinks."
-----------------------------------------
First, history is history! Sr. Sandra KNOWS her history of religious orders and communities---and so do many of us. It is not " HER TAKE on what she believes is the development of religious life"--- she has studied well its history. And more importantly, she has lived and is living the religious life. That is more than many of the Cardinals and certainly, the Pope have done. They were diocesan priests.
Secondly, WE are the Church----it is not the property of the Pope, or other members of the hierarchy. We enter the Church at baptism----all are received by God's mercy, love and grace---not just the hierarchy. It is the members of a religious order/congregation following their Rule and Constitution who determine WHAT RELIGIOUS LIFE IS TODAY---not the Pope---who has never lived this life.
It seems to me---that your understanding of the history of religious life is improvished. Some history for you---the official Church tried to tell St. Clare of Assisi how she and her "Poor Ladies" were to live out their religious life. Rome gave a rule of life to Clare and her followers. Clare resisted and insisted that SHE will write a Rule of Life that they will follow--not have a rule imposed upon them by Rome. Clare prevailed, and became the first woman to have HER rule of life approved by Rome.
Mary McKillop, an Australian religious, was excommunicated by members of the Australian hierarchy, because of her insistance as to the works that religious women should be engaged in. She held her ground in spite of the terrible persecution she suffered at the hands of the 'official Church'. Today, this saintly woman will soon be cannonized.
It is those who live the life, studies and meditated upon their Rule and their Constitutions who determine what the life of a religious is today, and nobody else. You, TNCath, are most incorrect. It really does matter what Sr. Sandra thinks and knows.
Little Bear, your reminder
Little Bear, your reminder about the importance of history reminds me of my favorite Ratzingerian quote:
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry greater weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 17).
If only some of our more "traditionalist" brothers and sisters would remember this simple truth!
Good grief, what a foolish
Good grief, what a foolish statement TN Catholic! Who do you think the Church is? Is it not you, me, Sister Schneiders, Father McBrien, and every member's Church? Is that not what Christ left behind - a Church for all of us? And by the way, both McBrien and Schneiders are accomplished theologians, so yes, what they think matters to most anyone who has an open mind, even if they don't agree with them. Be more open: the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways! By the way - nuns/sisters taught me that!
Indeed. NTCath, you and I and
Indeed. NTCath, you and I and all the Baptised ARE the Church [not only the ordained] - so their voices must be heard. Perhaps the magisterium has forgotten this foundational doctrine of the Church.
The difficulties with the
The difficulties with the original article are multiple.
First, Schneider attempts to silence criticism via a unilateral declaration that many, if not most, of her potential interlocutors are in fact not qualified to comment. At best, I find this to be distasteful. At worst, it's a bit of uncalled-for and disrespectful Sophistry.
But more serious is the question that is ignored--- it is the question of viability. It's kind of the elephant in the living room, one that main-line religious congregations must discuss, and do discuss, but don't much care to discuss with the laity.
Even as congregations merge many, similar, smaller, congregations into larger ones, the question of critical mass continues to arise. This is excacerbated by an aging population where the median age is rapidly approaching the age where ability to earn shared income diminishes and the need for assisted living, long-term care and end-of-life care increases. It would appear that many congregations have suffient historical assets to take care of their remaining population, but when those assets and that population runs out, the question becomes "what now?"
It's all well and good to pray, pray, and pray some more for vocations.
The reality, though, is clear. Those with "vocations" aren't showing up to the novitiates in any significant numbers and they haven't been doing so for about a quarter of a century. They're either going somewhere else, or they aren't going at all.
So all arguments about monasticism, habits or not, community living and prayer or not aside, the vowed religious' lifestyle is becoming more and more like that their "Third Order" or associate or affiliate brethren.
Fewer and fewer "ministerial religious" begin and end their work days in community houses and in the activities pertaining to same, such as shared meals,
shared prayer including at least an abbreviated Liturgy of the Hours, and ongoing formation activities.
To some, those vestigial "monastic" aspects were part of the value proposition. The structure and social interaction that they offered met certain very real human needs and supported the decision to pursue a celibate and chaste life.
Just above, I use the term "value proposition," one that is commonly used in business, particularly in sales and marketing. Some will no doubt blanche at the idea of a "vocation" being reduced to a "value proposition."
But I can speak from personal experience when I say that evaluation of one's vocation in the context of a particular religious community (or any relgious community) is about that community being able to present a coherent and compelling "value proposition" to the aspirant. Perhaps it should be considering the stakes: one's very life!
Of course in this case it isn't entirely about money, it's about getting one's human needs met adequately in order to provide a context to do ministerial work. There are any number of factors to consider:
In 1969, the answers were fairly clear...whereever one went as a religious brother or sister there was a local community of religious to work with, to
play with, to take one's meals with, and to pray with. Conversely, one generally wasn't sent to a ministry where that context was absent. One could see the retirement community where one, God willing, would finish up one's days a half or three-quarters of a century hence. All in all, it presented a fairly compelling "value proposition" for one's life.
Today's vocation-discerner sees a very different picture, I think.
When weighing vowed religious life in any one of the "old line" religious communities, the young person may not be able to detect very much that favors taking vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to one of those communities.
Weighed against life as a lay minister or (for men, so far) a diocesan priest, what would be the draw?
Consider that:
Why, then, would a young person choose such a life?
When I considered religious life, things were already changing. Though the order I was looking to was still pretty much in denial. As such, they presented community life as it had been a decade before and as they hoped it would be. To me, and in equal measure with the work itself, that was the draw. I don't think I would have for a moment considered a situation where I'd likely be pretty much on my own, a celibate and chaste "bachelor," with an uncertain provision for my dotage, having little more to show for my community affiliation than the title "Brother" or "Father" and some funny letters after my name.
Perhaps many religious will disagree-- perhaps they will say that they find adequate temporal security now and in the future in the context of their communities so that they don't have to worry, and are free to minister without that concern. Perhaps they will say that they don't miss the communities of eight, ten, or twenty brothers and sisters. And perhaps they'll say that they have found sufficient context outside of the way things used to be to be socially and spiritually fulfilled.
One thing they cannot deny, though, is that they are the "remnant." They are the minority who didn't leave in their first decade or two of religious life in order to find fulfillment in the context of family life. So perhaps they're folks who are, by nature, either especially self-sufficient or self-contained.
But there still remains the question hanging out there: "Where is the next generation?" What is there in the life of Franciscans, Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Holy Cross, Dominicans, Benedictines, Sisters of Charity, and so on that would draw a twenty-something young adult with a minsterial (read "vibrant," "probably extroverted," "lively," "other-oriented") personality to making it the context for the rest of their life?
If the answer is "not much" then the Orders must be realistic and either plan for a "soft landing" over the coming decades, or they must go back and "find" the charism and appeal which they once had.
You've written a good piece
You've written a good piece here. The world has changed. How many families sit down together for a meal today? How many go to Church as a unit? Even the "normal" family is different than back in the fifties when these orders were able to provide the "value proposition". Families aren't doing to well either as kids wonder who mom or dad is going to marry next or will there be steady paychecks that cover everything including health insurance and sports activities. The WORLD is different, PEOPLE are different so we need to look for different answers. We can't go back to the fifties.
okay but other than that,
okay but other than that, pretty good article, what?
Greg pronounces: "they must go back and "find" the charism and appeal which they once had."
This is precisely what they did with great courage, pain and application after the Second Vatican Council, and did well.
Is this that whole reforming the reform thang so popular nowadays taking on the return to original roots we saw after the Second Vatican Council?
Gee, I have not seen the word charism since then!
And what is this "appeal?"
Legal or sexual?
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
But, Mon Frère, how can that
But, Mon Frère, how can that be?
It seems to me like you're saying "Wagner's music is better than it sounds."
Or have I missed something?
Religious orders of teachers and ministers aren't finding enough in the way
of young vocations to sustain their "critical mass" into the next few decades.
Speaking at least for myself, many of the things that attracted me to religious
life when I was a young man are now gone, with the thinning of the ranks and the
dissolution of community life. The result seems to be a sort of spiral towards
the extinction of many communities.
Does anyone else find the
Does anyone else find the headline of McBrien's article strange? Who is the "critic of ministerial religious life"? It doesn't sound like he is, and Sandra Schneiders certainly isn't criticizing the concept--she's recognizing something that Rodé and company do not understand. Editors? What's the deal?
I believe the intended word
I believe the intended word is "Critique" as in "A critique of ministerial religious life" which this excellent article indicates in the writing of Sister Schneider.
Not a "who" but a "what."
No one does our French anymore, comme il faut le faire . . .
c'est la vie . . .
sans la belle langue
je suis
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
TNCath, I am very sure that
TNCath, I am very sure that S. Sandra's talk was well documented. I don't believe that Father McBrien would allude to it, or encourage us to read it if it were not factual. I think, that if you were to take it, and lay it out against church history, as well as against the social and political scenes of each period, you would find it to be quite accurate.
As a lay person, struggling to be disciplined, I find the difference between the two forms of rule to be enlightening. I cannot live a monastic lifestyle in the secular world, but I can live a ministerial one. If you were to count all of us who try to do just that, the numbers of the ministerial orders would sky rocket. We choose to follow the example of these wonderful religious women with two notable differences - they are vowed and they are members of a community.
Frere Charles, Do you know
Frere Charles,
Do you know that "Our most highly Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor" is a proponent of killing unborn babies in the womb?
Do you think this is also part of the "making up our own rules" in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church, of which she claims to be a part? Since you find her statement so inspiring (I think it's downright scary coming from a Supreme Court Justice) do you think these little lives, willed by God,are outside the love and mercy that you say we have to show others?
No, Cast. Can you refer me
No, Cast.
Can you refer me to the relevant decisions? I cannot find it.
Saint Augustine said the essence of the Commandments and the Law is this:
"Love, and do what you will."
Precisely what our pre-eminent Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. How daring and yet proper of her to plagiarize Saint Augustine!
I find that mighty inspiring.
Do you normally not find Saint Augustine inspiring?
just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Castellina, Your written
Castellina,
Your written statement that Sotomayor “is a proponent of killing unborn babies in the womb” is a gross distortion of actual fact. It is calumny and libel — and a deliberate effort to inflame the dialogue and emotions — behavior shared by many religious zealots to achieve their political ends, and to forcefully impose the harshest of Catholic doctrine targeting women upon every citizen of the United States.
.
As a judge, she has said that Roe v. Wade is a matter of settled law — which it is, having been ruled as such by the highest court in the land. Repeated challenges have failed, and subsequent rulings have reinforced that status. Her statement is not a “personal opinion”, but rather a statement of what is. Only Sotomayor, her confessor and God, know for a certainty what her personal opinion in the matter of “choice” happens to be. Outside of that, the state of her soul is no one else’s business… including yours. A judge makes rulings based on established law; they don’t legislate new law. It’s how the system is designed to operate.
.
The ongoing wild-eyed, hysterical, ill-informed claims of the anti-abortion/pro-theocracy crowd, continue to undercut any credibility they might have otherwise had in any truly helpful discussion. That includes the USCCB.
Mark my words Aileen, sooner
Mark my words Aileen, sooner rather than later we will see some of these monomaniacs, led by a shrieking bishop or two, calling for the denial of Holy Communion to judges who do not make their rulings in the approved fashion. That is the world we live in for the time being.
Focusing 90% of the Church's
Focusing 90% of the Church's time, resources and energies on the 9 months of pregnancy, while doing little about the next 70+ years is shortsighted...
It marks women as little better than vessels for breeding the next generation, instead of persons having their own innate dignity and value.
Women who are valued and cherished and secure enough to hope for the future WANT to have children, out of an overflowing of their own loving natures. Women who aren't feeling loved enough, resent the children that they find themselves forced to bear... there is little enought to go around as it is, why should they be the ones asked to share so much???
Are the MEN in our societies doing without everything, including sacrificing their very lives, to raise these kids???
Fr. O'Brien's commentary on
Fr. O'Brien's commentary on Sr. Sandra is very interesting and needs to be followed by our Catholic Chrisitan community. We owe a lot to our women religious - no matter what the calling in their individual community.
Sr. Sandra may know a lot about the Church in the U.S.A, still she does not tap into the Catholic history. Look into the life of the first woman to be declared a doctor of the Church Mother Teresa of Jesus - everything this modern topic is talking about was addressed by her in the 16th cent. One of the big issues was self-governance of the Carmel community by the women that were professed members, not the vigilance of any masculine authority. She was strongly opposed to the local bishop giving them orders. The visiting of our nuns seems to have originated among a small group of U.S. bishops, whO requested that it be carried out. Let them pay the bill! Let the nuns leave their dioceses! God bless you!
Harriet – you are not being
Harriet – you are not being honest with your comments about Teresa of Jesus.
Saint Teresa of Avila always conceded to the will of the Church, she makes that point over and over in her writings to her sisters – to be humble and submissive to the will of God through the authority of the Church. Her issue with the bishops had to do with them trying to interfere with her foundations, which conflicted with the authority that was granted to her by her Order.
Further, Teresa specifically states that if anything she wrote conflicted with the teachings of the Church, that those pages should be torn from her manuscript and never seen. Teresa grew in holiness through humility, passion, and a zeal for Christ and His Church. That was who she was to the core. To pretend that Teresa would support any bit of this nonsense where women religious were rebelling against the Church is not only ridiculous, it is sacrilege. Shame on you.
Peace.
Fr. McBrien. Using your
Fr. McBrien. Using your rational that the Vatican has no moral authority for the Visitation or investigation of LCWR based on the "have no lived experience of or academic competence" argument is weak scholarship. Extending that same argument, a priest should not provide counseling to man who beats his wife because the priest had never lived with the woman and had never beat a women. Or maybe the Holy Father should not have condemned the 911 highjackers because he never was a Muslim or never had his pilot’s license?
Peace.
Remove the rotten apples. It
Remove the rotten apples.
It is funny how liberal-minded Catholics begin their letters about the Visitation and investigation by saying that women religious are good, holy people who have contributed greatly to the Church for many centuries. Of course they are! That is the same position of orthodox-minded Catholics. We love women Religious as much as you. That is not the point. There are some bad apples that have been trying to rot the entire barrel for a number of years. It is time to stop the decay (reflected in the diminishing numbers of vocations). We all want the same thing, vibrant, healthy, and holy communities of vowed women and men religious.
In my opinion, some signs of the rotten apples are:
1. Those who want to move the ministry and focus of women religious “beyond Christ” (i.e. topic of LCWR National Confernce).
2. Those who have a real hatred toward men. Christ does not tolerate hatred toward anyone.
3. Those who publicly reject the teachings of Christ and His Church.
4. Those who reject the teachings of Vatican II, including Perfectae Caritatis
Control, silence women. That
Control, silence women. That is what this is about. My girlfriend brought to my attention a great book by Stephen O'Shea about the Cathars of Italy and France who got wiped out by the pope of the day.
In it O'Shea shows that after some of the Crusades, the loss and humiliation, financial cost too, the pope Innocent III decided to enact laws in 1200 to cloister and silence all nuns, to disallow any visitors to the nuns, to disallow any woman ever attending the newly formed universities. To control the nuns dowries and get access to them. To keep women terrified and reinforce ideas of women's worthlessness according to the pope.
In the late 1100's the world had experienced the brilliance, the writing, the public preaching and teaching of the multi-talented, charismatic, highly educated Nun, Abbess Hildegard of Bingen, she who heads of state visited to obtain her counsel and wisdom.
Now in 1200, this Innocent III (odd ironic name) forced nuns to remain in cloister, denied nuns visitors or any travelling, denied them university educations (wealthy could still have private tutors). Hildegard had moved her group of nuns to try to achieve greater autonomy, to try to have the nuns able to control their own dowries. Innocent III wanted to make sure the bishops, priests got control of the nuns dowries and patrimonies.
A long period of suppression of women followed. For 500 years women and men who tried to protect them found themselves 'scapegoated', tortured, burned at the stake, crushed to death, executed, their property and possessions seized, in the long years of Inquisition, ( which ended in 1789). Women were accused of being 'heretic' and 'witches'. So many wealthy widows 'became' saints for 'donating' their properties to the church. That or die at the stake for their lack of 'co-operation.'
We are in another period of intense attempted suppression of women by the Roman Catholic church hierarchy and pope. May the Roman Catholic laity and clergy and theologians of integrity not allow the abuse of women to happen, for this misogyny is destroying the Roman Catholic church when women are denied their co-worker place at the altar, when women are silenced and kept out of ordination.
Oh dear- "Cave ab homine
Oh dear- "Cave ab homine unius libri"
The real focus must be=
The Final Judgment
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
All the rest is functionally irrelevant-
Post new comment