The Nuns' Story - A Hypothetical

[Catherine Therese]

The end never justifies the means. Doing the wrong thing (i.e. perpetrating a falsehood) is never justifiable simply because it was done with good intentions.

There is a possible argument for the principle of double effect to be applied in order to support someone failing the test out of obedience, because it WOULD truly be obedience. The same principle cannot be applied because neither true charity or true humility would have been present. Both charity and humility reside in truth.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Catherine Therese' timestamp='1306324461' post='2245736']
The end never justifies the means. Doing the wrong thing (i.e. perpetrating a falsehood) is never justifiable simply because it was done with good intentions.

There is a possible argument for the principle of double effect to be applied in order to support someone failing the test out of obedience, because it WOULD truly be obedience. The same principle cannot be applied because neither true charity or true humility would have been present. Both charity and humility reside in truth.
[/quote]


Another absolutely excellent point! And if we can debate this issue so much, how much harder would it have been for Sr Luke, who had no concept of a superior asking her to do something wrong - although she might have felt this, she probably blamed herself for not having enough 'humility'. But as you point out, this would not be true humility anyway! To pretend that one isn't competent when one is cannot be termed humility. And the fact is that she was given the choice, not put under obedience, so the superior must have known deep inside herself that what she was asking was not right - in fact, the very point that she refused to let the Motherhouse know indicates this as well!!

[Antigonos]

An Amazon reviewer who happens to be a religious, said that the whole incident was contrived "because no superior would ever make such a request", and that it ruined the book for him. But I wonder. Sr. Luke entered the convent precisely because she wanted to be a nurse in the Congo and in those days there were no lay nurses there. In both her postings to other places--the insane asylum and the TB hospital, she had problems adjusting, and in the latter, with her superior.

Early in the book she is sent to the sister in charge of mending and altering the habits, and Sr. Luke finds the experience unsettling and somewhat intimidating: in Sr. Euxodia she sees an example of extreme "self-sacrifice", "content to serve the Lord with her needle for 50 years". It apparently never occurs to Sr. Luke that perhaps Sr. Eudoxia is happy to do so; needlework being her greatest gift. Sr. Luke apparently thinks that all the other sisters have her missionary zeal.

What Mother Marcella was suggesting was nothing less than that Sr. Luke renounce what she perceived as her life's mission. The order could have found another sister for the Congo, after all. The incident is described as being pivotal; I think that Sr. Luke, at that point, should have questioned her vocation. It was possible, after all, to "do good" outside the convent, and indeed she did, after she left and began nursing resistance fighters and refugees. Later Sr. Luke was to describe the period after her TB cure in the Congo as being the only time when she actually fulfilled her relligious life; put her under the slightest strain and she could not adapt to it.

Would I do the same thing? Not easy for me to say, but since I never had any consuming passion to do only one thing in life, I don't know whether it would have been difficult for me to fail if it was asked of me.

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1306324197' post='2245734']
Another thought just occured to me - in the scene where she is giving a drink of water to a patient and the bell rings, she is supposed to stop everything and respond, but she always found this very hard because the nurse in her wanted to put the needs of the person above those of the bell (which was supposed to be the voice of God for her).

I know the nurse in her was fighting the nun, but I also wonder if she was thinking of Jesus' statement that 'whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me" and wanted to serve them as she would Jesus? I think it must be incredibly tough to be in an active apostolate when there is a conflict like this. It's easier to be Mary than Martha sometimes!!
[/quote]



I agree here to an extent...

However I'm also irritated that the two are played off against each other in this way. The second or two that it takes to give a sick patient a drink of water... reality is that in THIS case, choosing the better part is doing that. Giving the water. It will only run her a second or two late for prayer anyway and this isn't taking anything from God, for that person who was served was served because he/she was made in the image and likeness of God, it was with the intention of serving God through serving other.

Again, we have the principle of double effect. The intention isn't to be disobedient. The intention is to be truly charitable. Charity trumps obedience in the hierarchy of virtues. So there wouldn't seem to me to be any moral culpability for the disobedience here, even though disobedience DOES actually occur.

That doesn't mean to say there aren't consequences... perhaps part of what makes the act so charitable is going beyond knowing that the patient needed a glass of water. Its knowing that by giving the glass of water, its going to cost you something. For Sr Luke, giving the glass of water meant being perceived to be disobedient and being reprimanded or even punished. Offering this sacrifice of subjecting to unjust punishment back to God perfects the charity of the corporal act of mercy performed. After all, the servant is not greater than the Master - He was punished for crimes He did not commit. Of COURSE we will be injured unjustly too.

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='Antigonos' timestamp='1306328665' post='2245761']
Sr. Luke entered the convent precisely because she wanted to be a nurse in the Congo and in those days there were no lay nurses there. I
[/quote]

I think that is part of the problem.

In religious life, we are called first to BE and secondarily to DO.

Sr Luke was focused on the charism, was driven by the charism - she basically tried to force an agenda with God. She seemed to miss the point that first and foremost she was a woman set apart for Him, that the Lord had called her to be His spouse.

Religious orders are not social work providers, even though corporal acts of mercy very often fall within the purview of their charism. Religious orders are communities of men or women set apart for God and their main task is to be precisely that; then comes the 'work' of a liturgical nature - Mass and the Office. Everything else comes after these duties.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

NOTE: I don't think Sr. Luke was really thinking about the convent, rather the apostolate.

1. No matter what Sr. Luke was called to, I don't think the superior should have asked her to fail. As both the sisters were enrolled, both should have done the best they could with their talents. It's like asking an "A" French student to fail because someone else isn't as good and it will make them feel better. Some people are better at the science, as Sr. Luke was. The other sister seemed to be jealous of her success and knowledge. Perhaps a better approach would have been to have Sr. Luke tutor the other sister.

2. I don't know if I would have failed the exam or not. I'm a bit of a brainiac and would seriously have trouble doing less than what I know I can do. My teachers always told me that by using my gifts, I was honoring God....

Now I think I need to rewatch the movie. It is very good. Nunsense--this is was a great, though challenging, question. Very thought provoking!

[AccountDeleted]

Okay - since we have such great comments happening, how about another question (the poll limited me to three questions)...

do you think the superior in the Congo endangered Sr Luke's vocation by constantly giving her permission to miss community observances for work? Personally, I feel that the superior is partially responsible for Sr Luke focusing so much on her work that she actually became a workaholic and forgot the point of religious life. At least, in the movie (I forget the book), every time Sr Luke phone at night to ask to be excused, the superior gave her permission. This loss of community life and praying the Office in common (they obviously didn't keep all of the hours together, so what they did do was very important) allowed her to think of herself as a nurse first and nun second. As with every workaholic, it seems as if the work isn't done right now, it won't get done, but we all know that no one is indispensible and after she left the Congo, they somehow managed without her!

Since the superior is responsible for the souls of those entrusted to her care, how much should she be held accountable for Sr Luke's gradual loss of vocation?? Just curious...

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1306330838' post='2245771']
Okay - since we have such great comments happening, how about another question (the poll limited me to three questions)...

do you think the superior in the Congo endangered Sr Luke's vocation by constantly giving her permission to miss community observances for work? Personally, I feel that the superior is partially responsible for Sr Luke focusing so much on her work that she actually became a workaholic and forgot the point of religious life. At least, in the movie (I forget the book), every time Sr Luke phone at night to ask to be excused, the superior gave her permission. This loss of community life and praying the Office in common (they obviously didn't keep all of the hours together, so what they did do was very important) allowed her to think of herself as a nurse first and nun second. As with every workaholic, it seems as if the work isn't done right now, it won't get done, but we all know that no one is indispensible and after she left the Congo, they somehow managed without her!

Since the superior is responsible for the souls of those entrusted to her care, how much should she be held accountable for Sr Luke's gradual loss of vocation?? Just curious...
[/quote]

I'm not sure about the superior being held responsible, but there was definitely a problem.

Even though we think religious and priests are superhumans, they are really just like us. They need time with God, alone time. They need rest (which is why priests are required to take a vacation, at least in my diocese) to recharge.

Sr. Luke didn't have that, and it seriously hurt her vocation. She got too caught up in everyday life and lost the community.

The whole movie makes me sad the more that I think about it.

[Cherie]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1306330838' post='2245771']
Okay - since we have such great comments happening, how about another question (the poll limited me to three questions)...

do you think the superior in the Congo endangered Sr Luke's vocation by constantly giving her permission to miss community observances for work? Personally, I feel that the superior is partially responsible for Sr Luke focusing so much on her work that she actually became a workaholic and forgot the point of religious life. At least, in the movie (I forget the book), every time Sr Luke phone at night to ask to be excused, the superior gave her permission. This loss of community life and praying the Office in common (they obviously didn't keep all of the hours together, so what they did do was very important) allowed her to think of herself as a nurse first and nun second. As with every workaholic, it seems as if the work isn't done right now, it won't get done, but we all know that no one is indispensible and after she left the Congo, they somehow managed without her!

Since the superior is responsible for the souls of those entrusted to her care, how much should she be held accountable for Sr Luke's gradual loss of vocation?? Just curious...
[/quote]

Great question, nunsense!

For me, I [i]do[/i] think the Superior endangered Sr. Luke's vocation in allowing her to miss so many community observations. Actually, I remember this issue being taught to me in my own religious community when I was a novice, that the Superiors have an obligation for the spiritual welfare of the Sisters under their care, and so issues like this [i]do[/i] fall in their jurisdiction: they need to make decisions based on [i]prudence[/i] and make sure they are taking care of the spiritual well-being of their Sisters.

I remember the Novice Mistress explaining that part of the reason why other Sisters would drive the Sisters to doctor's appointments instead of just the infirmarian is so that the infirmarian doesn't miss so many community practices: otherwise, she'd be driving Sisters around most of the day and wouldn't have time to take part in community prayer. While her duty as infirmarian is important and she can be dispensed of community practices because of it, it should never be to the detriment of her spiritual life, and so the Superior made sure she didn't miss too much.

[TeresaBenedicta]

Wow, what an interesting hypothetical! Let me just note that I'm answering my questions just based off of what is written here- I've neither read the book nor watched the movie.

[b]1) Should the Superior have ordered Sr. Luke to fail the test?[/b]

I'm inclined to say 'no', although I voted "just not sure." Like many others, I think that in this situation, the Superior was not doing her part to look after the well-being of the sister in question. Whether it was misguided hope to help the confidence of the other sister or just pure favoritism... it was harmful to both sisters.

But after reading a few comments concerning Sr. Luke's possible over-attachment to her work... I could perhaps think of a situation when such a request from a superior [i]could[/i] be helpful and good for the sister in question. If Sr. Luke was clearly over-attached to her work and perhaps even over-attached to success and the attention that brought from others... failing a test purposely, without anyone else knowing that she [i]could have[/i] passed, would have stripped from her those things to which she was overly-attached. I'm sure it would've been painful, but it could've been done.

Also: I don't think the Superior was necessarily asking Sr. Luke to sin. There are ways to fail without giving false responses- like another poster pointed out, "I decline to answer this question" is in no way a lie or a sinful... but it would certainly assure failure.

[b]2) Should Sr. Luke have failed the test?[/b]

Considering that the request was NOT made under obedience, I don't think there is any moral value to whatever Sr. Luke chooses. What I mean is that I don't think it would've been sinful either way. That being said, I think that failing the test would've been a better decision and more in line with seeking perfection. She was not ask to do something inherently sinful.

I know it would've been a difficult choice to make. But I think it would have been more ordered to the virtue of humility and to perfection.

Question: Given the situation, could Sr. Luke have invoked the advice of a confessor or a 'higher-up' superior? In confidence?

[b]3) Would you have failed it?[/b]

This is a tough one. I can easily imagine myself in Sr. Luke's position- I am very driven, academically speaking, and one of my major faults is intellectual vanity. I [i]like[/i] people to see me as intelligent, to notice my academic achievements. Not only do I like to do well, but I am also concerned about how I look in my professor's/parent's/other folks' eyes. And put in this situation, it would pain me a lot to have to fail. Not simply because I [i]could[/i] pass... but because no one else would know that I could pass.

All of that being said, I'd like to think that, with the grace of God, I'd be able to obey my superior and fail. Knowing my weaknesses as I do, I'd hope to recognize this as an opportunity to deny myself and my ego... to die to self. God knows I could've passed. I know I could've passed. Let my 'achievement' then be hidden, known only to God and me.

I was once placed in a similar situation by a confessor. He recommended to me something that went above and beyond mere 'restitution' of a wrong I had committed. He did not make it my penance nor place me under obedience to do it... but he helped me to see that it would be a great act of humility, that it would help me to die to self [i]especially[/i] because everything in me revolted against it. In the end, I did as he recommended, although it was terribly difficult to do... I've never forgotten that confession (how could I? it was nearly an hour long!!), nor what that priest helped me to see and the care he took to help me on the road to perfection.

We read and praise self-denial and recognize it as the path to true perfection... yet when it comes to 'unfair' situations, we gravitate toward making it 'fair'. When it comes to the opportunity for true self-denial, we faulter and looker for a different way to go... And it's often true that the other way to go is not immoral. Both choices are moral choices. But one choice is more perfect than the other and helps lead to perfection quicker than the other.

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1306317576' post='2245701']
My apologies!! I have modified the poll question - Sr Luke was not asked to do this under OBEDIENCE but as an act of humility and charity! She was given the choice. This is an important point.
[/quote]

Ah, okay. i havent actually seen the film and would need to, to know exactly the wording and tone etc. If it was a case of 'it might be nice if you failed but you are under no obligation to do so' in a light and breezy manner then maybe I would try to pass. If it was presented as a choice but was quite clear that they did want me to fail then to my mind I would need to do as asked - whether its an official OBEDIENCE or not, the overall vow of obedience *should* mean doing what I am asked without giving a second thought.

I still don't think it was fair to ask though, but if as I sister I was questioning (even inwardly) my superiors then I should look at myself carefully and decide if I truely was where I ought to be.



*Sigh* oh if only it was so easy in reality as it is to write

[GraceUk]

I absolutely and definitely think the superior was in the wrong to ask Sister Luke to fail the exam. For a start I think it would be against the rule of poverty. Because training staff takes money and effort from the Professors and this would be a total waste. And also what about the people she was going to be helping in the Congo. It wouldn't help them if she failed. But I do think it must have been annoying for the other nun to see how quick and clever Sister Luke was.

[beatitude]

In Sr Luke's position, I would have tried to find a gentle way of pointing out to the superior that was she was asking was immoral.

1.) It's a lie, even if you try to get round the questions by declining to answer.

2.) We have all been given certain gifts by God. It is our responsibility to make full use the gifts we have been entrusted with (see the parable of the talents). It would be better for the community to focus on helping the sister who was academically weak to build up her particular talents, rather than asking Sr Luke to diminish her own.

3.) Other people are affected by this piece of dishonesty. If I deliberately failed an exam, it would not just reflect badly on me, but on the teachers who worked so hard to coach me and prepare me. It would feel like a waste of their effort, which is not my work to waste.

I would probably have tried to think of some other way to demonstrate love for the sister who was struggling, and to cultivate proper humility in myself.

[cmaD2006]

I answered No - No - No.

The superior was wrong in asking Sr. Luke to flunk the exam. If Sr. Luke had been asked under obedience to flunk the exam then yes she should have, but however if she truly had free will to choose then her choice should be to do the best that she could on the exam.

The third question -- would I have purposefully flunked the exam. I said no.

But a major caveat. This assumes that I have the free will and the option to choose No. From my experience, this is tricky, because of the person who is making the request. Since the superior is asking Sr. Luke to fail the exam ... even though it isn't under obedience, it can be under "perceived obedience." You can also feel as though you have no choice but to do as asked.

Sr. Luke's superior definitely abused her authority. Unluckily it is something that can happen in religious life.

In the community I was most recently in I was asked to accept a change (I won't spell out the details here) by the founder of the institute (the institute consisted of both a women and a men branch, and the founder is a priest). This was days after a postulant/novice retreat that we attended, where emphasis was placed on the superior being the voice of God, and that most founders do become canonized as saints (note: I think both was emphasized in formation). I said yes -- but that yes was not of free will but because I felt I had to say yes. Needless to say it was a big mistake that has still marked me in my vocation.

I do hope that I've learned from this experience such that I can be brave enough to say no even when it may be a costly choice. Its better to make a costly choice out of free will than an easy choice out of force.

[Lilllabettt]

school is expensive. It would be against the vow of poverty to receive a costly education and then deliberately waste it. Shame on her superior for suggesting such a thing.