Opinions, Please!

[Gabriela]

curiousing - the thing is, that I've met a lot of bitter nuns and cranky priests as well, so I don't think it serves any purpose to try to understand a whole vocation from a few people who might have their own problems. I know you didn't mean any offence, but I was just hoping to head off at the pass any debates that might turn uncharitable.

 

If this subject is worthy of debate, then it needs to be put into the Debate Table, not discussed here on VS, where the focus hopefully can stay clear. Just my opinion of course - we can leave it up to the mods to take care of things if need be, but if we can police ourselves first, it might be better. :)

 

I don't mean for it to turn into a debate, and I certainly hope it doesn't turn uncharitable. I can think of all kinds of reasons why I've had this experience of (some) CVs. It seems like a rather lonely vocation (compared to religious/clerical/married life), for one. I reiterate that I was merely looking for others' impressions, not controversy or hurt feelings. I would be very happy if some of the CVs on the board would chime in themselves.

 

But if it is too "dangerous" a topic to discuss openly, I understand!

Edited October 23, 2013 by curiousing

[AccountDeleted]

I don't mean for it to turn into a debate, and I certainly hope it doesn't turn uncharitable. I can think of all kinds of reasons why I've had this experience of (some) CVs. It seems like a rather lonely vocation (compared to religious/clerical/married life), for one. I reiterate that I was merely looking for others' impressions, not controversy or hurt feelings. I would be very happy if some of the CVs on the board would chime in themselves.

 

But if it is too "dangerous" a topic to discuss openly, I understand!

 

 

Of course the topic of CVs is not a debate at all- it just seemed that a couple of posts wanted to make some kind of critical comment about CVs that didn't seem very necessary or relevant to this thread. That's all I meant.

[Gabriela]

Of course the topic of CVs is not a debate at all- it just seemed that a couple of posts wanted to make some kind of critical comment about CVs that didn't seem very necessary or relevant to this thread. That's all I meant.

 

Point taken. It was indeed off topic!  :like: 

[nikita92]

Why don't you become a post moderator Nunsense! More than a few times you have tried to regulated what people have said or not said in posts time after time! Sort of like policing!

[AccountDeleted]

Why don't you become a post moderator Nunsense! More than a few times you have tried to regulated what people have said or not said in posts time after time! Sort of like policing!

 

 

Well, Nikita, I'm not quite sure why it irritates you so much that I would like things to remain pleasant in VS, but I was looking at it more in terms of ALL of us moderating what we post here in VS. My concern is that we have had some threads really degenerate into personal attacks and unkind words, and in those cases, some threads had to be moved or locked, and some people were even warned and/or suspended.

 

Wouldn't it be so much nicer if we caught ourselves before things got to such a point that they require the mods to intervene?

 

This thread was originally about a canon lawyer's perspective on SOLT and consecration. Then it was mentioned that this canon lawyer is also a CV and from that point comments were made about CVs being 'bitter'. I guess I just thought it would be a good idea if we steered away from the personal opinions of CVs and stayed a little closer to the OP about different kinds of consecration - unless of course, people want to debate this - in which case, maybe VS isn't the best place.

 

Why does it always have to come down to personal attacks like 'more than few times you have tried to regulate what people have said or not said in posts time after time'. Why can't you just give me the benefit of the doubt as a fellow Christian that maybe I am just trying to keep things 'nice' around here by asking us to look at what we post and consider its relevance to the topic?

 

Anyway, I know my intentions are good. I'm sorry if you think I am just being controlling. I will leave it up to the mods to do the regulating- but I will probably still continue to advocate for a little charity around here. :|

[Aya Sophia]

http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/archives/1051

 

I've been following certain Catholic bloggers outside phatmass. This article is both interesting and confusing to me. I'd be curious to hear other peoples' opinon...

 

Is this Orthodox or traditional Catholic teaching? I know young people who have asked me about it. Thoughts please?

 

The author's use of the two images to indicate the state of the habit, indicating the lack of a habit today, is misleading.  At the motherhouse in Rue de Bac (and presumably elsewhere, as I saw (spoke to) Sisters from the Philippines and from Germany, wearing identical habits to Sisters in Rue de Bac) the Sisters do indeed wear a habit.

 

As for canonical status, France has a long history of formalised persecution of the Catholic church and, more pointedly, of priests and religious, regardless of their canonical status.  Started with the revolution - not sure when it would be said to have ended but certainly continued into the first half of the 20th C.  It's quite poss that a community or order and the individuals in it had a certain canonical status at one stage but were forced by the govt to put it aside in favor of secularisation.  With the advent of yet another govt they might regain, canonically, something of what they had lost under the previous only to lose it again later on.  Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul would certainly not have been exempt from this -  in fact, they were always in the thick of it. 

 

Add to this the relative newness of active Orders in St. Catherine's time (relative meaning, Church was 1800+ years old, active orders appeared end of 18th beginning of 19thc).  Given the slowness of movement in legal matters in the Church, at the time of St. Catherine there was probably still a haziness about canonical status and canon law covering active orders.  (Historian of canon law I am not - just my take).

 

All this is to say that the case of St. Catherine Laboure seems an "easy target" for the blogger ref'ed above to use to support her ideas.

 

Beautiful, very substantial account of St. Catherine Laboure at http://archive.org/stream/venerablesisterc00crapuoft/venerablesisterc00crapuoft_djvu.txt   What a magnificent soul.

 

(btw, this account mentions her entering as postulant, then entering novitiate, etc.)

 

Edited October 23, 2013 by Aya Sophia

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

While I'm not thrilled with the tone of the post it is correct. Of course, back in the time of St. Catherine the only ones considered religious according to canon law were monks and nuns. It wasn't until the 1917 code that active religious were considered religious.

 

Part of the problem we are having today is that the "new" code of 1983 puts everyone under the term of "consecrated life" so everything is pretty much murky.

 

And just to throw in another curve...in the middle ages anyone living a rule of life: tertiaries, etc. were considered living "religious life". Technically, the 3rd Order cloisters of the Dominican Order weren't nuns but what were they considered according to the Church. No one is really sure. Canon Law wasn't the important thing it is now before Trent.

 

The current theology of religious life puts heavy importance on the vows (and the type of vows) while the older Orders put the stress on living the way of life one has embraced. It's a slight nuance but significant in the theology of religious life and the theology of the vows.

 

I'm not sure where it is all going to go but I suspect down the road (maybe when I'm long gone and dead) there will be some clarifications in all this.

[AccountDeleted]

While I'm not thrilled with the tone of the post it is correct. Of course, back in the time of St. Catherine the only ones considered religious according to canon law were monks and nuns. It wasn't until the 1917 code that active religious were considered religious.

 

Part of the problem we are having today is that the "new" code of 1983 puts everyone under the term of "consecrated life" so everything is pretty much murky.

 

And just to throw in another curve...in the middle ages anyone living a rule of life: tertiaries, etc. were considered living "religious life". Technically, the 3rd Order cloisters of the Dominican Order weren't nuns but what were they considered according to the Church. No one is really sure. Canon Law wasn't the important thing it is now before Trent.

 

The current theology of religious life puts heavy importance on the vows (and the type of vows) while the older Orders put the stress on living the way of life one has embraced. It's a slight nuance but significant in the theology of religious life and the theology of the vows.

 

I'm not sure where it is all going to go but I suspect down the road (maybe when I'm long gone and dead) there will be some clarifications in all this.

 

 

Thank you Sr Mary Catherine - very well put. It is a difficult time for the Church as a whole, with opinions being polarized on a multitude of different issues, so it is no surprise that religious life should be yet another area where there are confusions and differences of opinion.

 

And as you point out, canon law has changed over the centuries, and it appears that changes haven't stopped yet. Certainly the content of the article might have been better received if it had been less confrontational.

[nikita92]

[mod]deleted for the confrontational tone.... and as a note, the moderating team is appreciative of anyone who helpfully reminds people to avoid confrontations and debates in Vocation Station, there is nothing wrong with a non-moderator reminding people to avoid confrontation, it is welcomed and appreciated -Aloysius

 

Edit:  And said in agreement after discussion, so if anyone needs to blame a mod, blame us all. - BG[/mod]

[NotreDame]

Indeed, an interesting nuance it is.   From my own limited experience, I've seen in some newer orders the focus in both the constitution and community life is very much on the "vows", or at least one vow in particular and very little attention given to the "rule" or way of life.  In fact, the vows - or at least what the community sees as the "most important vow" - can be followed precisely and yet the way of life can be quite arbitrary and vary greatly among members and houses.  Hmm... Very interesting point worthy of more thought.

 

Also, thanks to the OP.  I find the Canon Lawyers site very interesting.

 

The current theology of religious life puts heavy importance on the vows (and the type of vows) while the older Orders put the stress on living the way of life one has embraced. It's a slight nuance but significant in the theology of religious life and the theology of the vows.

Edited October 23, 2013 by NotreDame

[Sponsa-Christi]

How come CVs are so often like that? This isn't a personal attack on any individual CV, or on the vocation itself (which I find plenty laudable). It's just something I've noticed in a lot of CVs. So many of them seem bitter... Why?

 

Sorry to keep this tangent alive, but I actually did write a whole post about this on my blog last year: "Consecrated Virgins and Bitterness." I originally wrote this post with other consecrated virgins in mind as my intended audience (although my I think my main purpose was really to preach to myself first of all). But maybe VS-ers with these kinds of questions may find it helpful as well. 

 

And by the way, Curiousing, I just want to reassure you that I was not offended at all by your comment. Naturally, I'm always saddened and embarrassed when CVs give this kind of impression. But I think that talking honestly about these kind of problems in a respectful and appropriate context is a very good and necessary thing. I do feel like a lot of vocation-discernment resources on consecrated virginity tend to romanticize this vocation a little bit, so a big part of me is actually glad when I see discerners/aspiring CVs consider the challenges and "issues" associated with this vocation in a realistic way. 

[Gabriela]

Sorry to keep this tangent alive, but I actually did write a whole post about this on my blog last year: "Consecrated Virgins and Bitterness." I originally wrote this post with other consecrated virgins in mind as my intended audience (although my I think my main purpose was really to preach to myself first of all). But maybe VS-ers with these kinds of questions may find it helpful as well. 

 

And by the way, Curiousing, I just want to reassure you that I was not offended at all by your comment. Naturally, I'm always saddened and embarrassed when CVs give this kind of impression. But I think that talking honestly about these kind of problems in a respectful and appropriate context is a very good and necessary thing. I do feel like a lot of vocation-discernment resources on consecrated virginity tend to romanticize this vocation a little bit, so a big part of me is actually glad when I see discerners/aspiring CVs consider the challenges and "issues" associated with this vocation in a realistic way. 

 

Excellent, SC! Thank you for the link to the blog! It looks great!  :like3: 

[TheresaThoma]

I would like to add that this has made be go back and look over the website for the community I am discerning with and really pay attention to exactly how they describe themselves and what terms they use.

[ChristinaTherese]

[mod]deleted for the confrontational tone.... and as a note, the moderating team is appreciative of anyone who helpfully reminds people to avoid confrontations and debates in Vocation Station, there is nothing wrong with a non-moderator reminding people to avoid confrontation, it is welcomed and appreciated -Aloysius

 

Edit:  And said in agreement after discussion, so if anyone needs to blame a mod, blame us all. - BG[/mod]

Thank you all. Although I do have to say that I read Niki's first post and took it more literally than she meant and thought Nunsense might really make a good mod. Her levelheadedness has been good time and time again. (Thanks, Nunsense!)

[AccountDeleted]

Thank you all. Although I do have to say that I read Niki's first post and took it more literally than she meant and thought Nunsense might really make a good mod. Her levelheadedness has been good time and time again. (Thanks, Nunsense!)

 

 

From your mouth to dUSt's ears, CT - but I doubt it will happen. I seem to have a way of getting some people's backs up - without much effort at all on my part - my passion is often misinterpreted as arrogance. :(  

 

But thank you for the kind words. It's nice to know that someone likes me! :)