Hola Pham! I've been thinking of posting this as a topic for some time. Here goes- How important is a community's practice of poverty? Is it important that a community be 'really' poor? What do you think?

You mean, "really" poor as in not owning their own buildings? Or "really" poor as in shaving off the hair of twelve girls, then finding out the money with which you were going to buy the habit cloth is going to be used to buy, er, you know, food, and make the poor girls walk around nearly bald for six more weeks? (Talk to the superior of the SSVM... she can laugh about it now.)

I think it's important that poverty is lived, but it's most importantly a mental state. You can have nearly nothing but still feel like this is "yours", or you can have more stuff available (a house, a computer, better food) but be detached from it all. The latter is better, of course.

For me, there doesn't have to be very rigid communal poverty, as long as the community isn't tied down so much that it couldn't move quickly if the Holy Spirit wanted it to (can you tell I'm not Benedictine? ). But there does have to be personal poverty. I wouldn't want to keep track of which tea mug belongs with which sister.

~Perfectae Caritatis 13

For me the observance of poverty is fairly important. I think the above quotes from V-II do lay down the guidelines overall fairly well. It is best to be poor in fact as well as in spirit, and certainly the accumulation of goods is to be avoided. But it does leave room for orders less centered on a strict vow of poverty.

Of course as a (God Willing) soon to be Cistercian I think that the stability of buildings and self-sufficiency are not violations of the accumulation of goods, as they are necessary to the vow of stability.

I suppose I meant the attitude of poverty. I have seen websites of suppposedly very auster cloistered orders that seem to lack something in their practice of poverty. I mean, I understand that being poor doesn't mean that their buildings should be ugly or even plain, but at the same time should a Carmelite monastery look like the inside of a bank? THe monasteries/convents that I have visited have all been beautiful, but also very plain and simple looking.
Before anyone comments I do understand that the practice of poverty varies by community and order. I'm really not trying to be critical so much as discuss this position.

Sometimes monastery buildings are really old and have over the centuries have been kept in good condition and it's more economical to keep those and not abandon them in favour of something "simpler" or "poorer" or something. Sometimes a community receives a donation which has been intended for a shrine or windows or something in the chapel.

Having said all that, sometimes I really do wonder how poor Mother Angelica's PCPAs are. But then, according to the old joke (by extension at least), that's one of the things not even God knows....

I know they seem like they appear very rich by the looks of their chapel, but that chapel, according the biography of Mother Angelica by Raymon Arroyo, was donated by five very rich people. They actual monastery itself, is supposed to be much more austere. Can't know for sure unless you've been in there, but even from the few pictures off OLAM's website, it definetly looks more sparce then the chapel.

True. I think the information about the benefactors of the church serves to prove the point in my first paragraph. I suppose I should be less cynical

Poverty would be pretty improtant for me, too. I don't mean We-don't-knnow-where-our-next-meal-is-coming-from poverty, but communal ownership, furniture & fixtures that are functional but not ostentatious.

It really bothers me when I see orders which are vowed to poverty, and they live in all the best zip codes. In my own diocese, the only Catholic high schools left are in the ritzy neighborhoods ($5, 6, 7, 8 thousand dollars a year in tuition!) - I guess poor kids can just go to hell! And at the same time, the religious who teach in those schools often harp on "preferential option for the poor" - I've got nothing against that, but I'd bet that I ate scrambled eggs for supper (growing up, 'cause that's all there was in the house) more often they they do.

I don't know... maybe that's why some of the orders hold poverty in such high esteem, because it's so easy to fall into the trap of upgrading - just a little here and a little there - until you're in the lap of luxury again.

The value of certain areas fluctuates over time. It could well be that when a congregation established itself in a particular neighbourhood it was a perfectly reasonable place, even a slum. Only over the years as a conurbation comes into existence the value goes up. It's somewhat unfair to accuse them of the attitude "poor kids can go to hell".

Furthermore, the value of a congregation's house isn't necessarily reflected in their lifestyles. The bigger a building is the more it costs to maintain it and that in itself would be enough to necessitate simple meals. In fact I know a house where the monks eat very simply two out of three, although unless you were staying inside you might not notice it as they put on good meals for the guests. And their monastery is old, grand, beautiful and a black hole in terms of money.

Those orders with an education apostolate may have less control than you think over how much they charge. Teachers are often notoriously underpaid anyway and don't underestimate the costs of running a school. Besides, it's often the money from ordinary, fee-paying pupils that help fund scholarships and bursaries for those who otherwise wouldn't be able to go there.

My sister went to a "Catholic" college run by sisters that wore practically miniskirts, jewelry and had fancy cars. Figure that one out.

^ Woah...I don't think I can...yeesh.