<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Who Speaks For Religious Orders?
I saw Archbishop Rode's comments on religious the other day. I almost commented on it, but I often ask myself, "Why would I?" I'm not a vowed religious. I'm not a formal associate of an order. One of CNS's paraphrases: Since the Second Vatican Council, he said, some orders have abandoned their traditional fields of apostolate, only to lose themselves in uselessness or unproductive activities. The result is stagnation, (Rode) said. Rode is the prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. He is a Vincentian, so perhaps he speaks with somewhat more credibility than a diocesan priest. But I confess my weariness of non-religious attempting to frame the debate in terms of the liberal/conservative divide or the flashpoints of dress and charism. Or men defining what role women are to have. Rode concedes: Throughout the history of the church, religious orders and congregations were always the ones pushing forward, bringing dynamism and a call for holiness. They were always on the front lines. And religious orders, especially women, were certainly at the forefront of Vatican II reforms. It might be argued that some lost their bearings in the process. (Of course, some Catholics would say that everybody with the exception of the SSPX lost their bearings.) Compared to the lukewarm renewal in the Liturgy of the Hours, or Catholic education, or the Sacrament of Reconciliation, women religious were considerably less fearful in implementing Vatican II. Joan Chittister is not St Blog's favorite daughter, but I didn't care much for Amy's comment on her thread treating this issue: But Sister Joan's stance towards the present situation is just odd. She writes of how healthy her community is now - why? Not because it's, you know, growing, but because the individuals within that community are free, creative and led by the Spirit where ever. It's one of those examples of how making your definitions clear is so important. Most of us would define a healthy community as one which gives life to others, and, to put it bluntly, reproduces. I've visited the Erie Benedictines. I would say that their community seemed healthy to me. You can tell a lot about it from its liturgy, and I saw more than just liturgy during my visits. Is reproduction not going on there? I saw younger sisters there. And I've known a number of women about my age and younger heading into non-traditional orders. Taking Chittister's definitions out of context doesn't do the discussion justice. I could just as easily surf SSPX web sites and come up with out-of-context photos and commentary that shows that for schismatic clergy, it's all about finery, privilege, and narcissism. But what would be the point? So I posted: (S)elf-determination has always been a hot spot for religious orders. What's the role of the local bishop? Rome? superiors? All that stuff. The question of self-determination is not about women saying, "It's about me, me, me!" It's about a community defining its own charism. Not having well-intentioned folks from outside the order or community imposing someone else's view. If the liberal orders have so little to offer, to less attractive to young people, and have so little future, why is there so much ink expended on them? Wishing the orders will die out -- especially actively rooting for it with a knowing smirk -- strikes me as greatly uncharitable. The future will tell. To this comment, the usual paranoia in reply: Because before they die out they're responsible for forming the next generation of young people, many of whom won't only avoid joining their liberal religious orders, but having been steeped in their liberal view of Catholicsm won't actively join in the life of the Church in general. Last time I looked there were quite a few Catholic liberals. You'd have a hard time saying we're dying out. The blogosphere seems to have an endless run of frustrating stories on how the Church has too many liberals involved in parishes. ... because they still have a lot of money and a lot of control over Catholic institutions. I am somewhat concerned that some of the few "late vocations" to these orders are single people who see a lot of money and power for the taking. I think I see. No people, but lots of money. Somehow, the USCCB has been duped by this. Why else would they foster a religious retirement collection? One of my mother's friends once let loose with a bit of profanity in the church restroom. A sister, not in a trad habit, made a comment to her. When relaying the story over their morning coffee, our neighbor asked my mom, "How do they expect us to know how to behave if we can't tell who they are anymore?" There's a convenience in seeing women religious as Hollywood portrays them. Most of all, they're absolutely non-threatening. I won't say that I've always had smooth sailing with sisters. I'm a product of Catholic schools and I've worked in parish ministry for almost twenty years. I've met women religious who have been petty, condescending, bitter, mean, unjust, and just plain unreligious. They tend to stand out from the usual run of women who embody a sense of sacrifice, commitment, tenacity, and best of all: faith. Some religious need no habit to distinguish themselves from the ordinary believers. And if women religious have somehow missed the boat by becoming lawyers, college presidents, campus ministers, diocesan bureaucrats, nurses, psychologists, spiritual directors, and peace activists, then I haven't seen it from my experience of the many sainted people I've known. Some of the anger toward religious has roots in bad personal experiences. And some of it is no doubt a function of preferring women religious to be safe figures. You can see a trad habit at several paces away. But usually, real holiness is within, and a person needs to get closer to encounter it.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

The Alliance for Moderate, Liberal and Progressive Blogs

Join | List | Previous | Next