The Nuns' Story - A Hypothetical

[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!

[Nunsense]

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.

[BarbTherese]

A religious superior cannot make a request under obedience that contravenes the moral law or one's conscience - or rather he or she can make the request, but there is no obligation under the vow of obedience to obey. Nowadays too, I have heard, if a religious superior makes a request and one does not quite agree even though the request did not contravene moral law or one's conscience, most superiors will talk over their request with the person and with an open mind. However, that having been accomplished, the superior makes the decision and the person has the obligation to obey.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' timestamp='1306365264' post='2245984']
A religious superior cannot make a request under obedience that contravenes the moral law or one's conscience - or rather he or she can make the request, but there is no obligation under the vow of obedience to obey. Nowadays too, I have heard, if a religious superior makes a request and one does not quite agree even though the request did not contravene moral law or one's conscience, most superiors will talk over their request with the person and with an open mind. However, that having been accomplished, the superior makes the decision and the person has the obligation to obey.
[/quote]

This is a good point.

But I'm not sure that the superior's request was [i]immoral[/i] per se. There could be circumstances that would render her request possibly a very good thing (if the sister in question did in fact struggle deeply with intellectual pride and valued the opinions others had of her). Of course, the superior would have to make it clear that the sister was not to [i]lie[/i] in her exam... but as others have mentioned, decline to answer. Or say something ambiguous like, "I cannot answer that question" (which may be interpreted to mean, I can't answer because I don't know, but doesn't have to be interpreted that way).

Anyways, what I mean to say is that the object of the act is not inherently immoral. Perhaps the circumstances made it so. But other circumstances, with the same object of the act, could be moral and perhaps in the best interest of the sister in question.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1306366946' post='2245992']
This is a good point.

But I'm not sure that the superior's request was [i]immoral[/i] per se. There could be circumstances that would render her request possibly a very good thing (if the sister in question did in fact struggle deeply with intellectual pride and valued the opinions others had of her). Of course, the superior would have to make it clear that the sister was not to [i]lie[/i] in her exam... but as others have mentioned, decline to answer. Or say something ambiguous like, "I cannot answer that question" (which may be interpreted to mean, I can't answer because I don't know, but doesn't have to be interpreted that way).

Anyways, what I mean to say is that the object of the act is not inherently immoral. Perhaps the circumstances made it so. But other circumstances, with the same object of the act, could be moral and perhaps in the best interest of the sister in question.
[/quote]


Having reflected on it, I think Sr Luke should have said "I cannot, Mother, in good conscience deliberately fail an exam. What I can do is not sit for the exam". But back in the days of Sr Luke, I think to say to one's religious superior "I will need to think about that prayerfully and I will get back to you" - would have been considered outrageous, rebellious and disobedient.

If the superior is objectively wrong in asking Sr Luke to fail the exam (and there is something dishonest about that to me) then if Sr Luke realizes this, to my mind she does not have an obligation under obedience to obey something objectively wrongful and dishonest. But again, back in Sr Luke's day to convey to a superior that what she is asking has something dishonest about it and I will not do it, would have been considered, outrageous, rebellious and disobedient.

Religious obedience is a call to mindful obedience not mindless obedience.

To mortify Sr Luke's intellectual pride and valuing other/s opinions of her, her superior could have asked her not to sit for the exam, to wait another year and not to discuss the reasons why - i.e. that she had been asked to do so. Certainly, back in her day, her fellow sisters probably would not ask. Her family probably would.
Quite ok to say "I am not sitting for the exam this year. I am waiting until next year and I really do not want to discuss my reasons. I am asking you to be accepting" Sounds ok to me.

[quote]"I cannot answer that question" [/quote]

To me this would be dishonest. Sr. Luke can answer the question, but she wont.
i.e. she should say " I will not answer that question".

Poor Sr Luke. I think she did the right thing in passing the exam and not obeying her superior. Did she go to the Congo after the exam, or was she sent somewhere else? I can't remember.

Edited May 26, 2011 by BarbaraTherese

[Sister Marie]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1306315325' post='2245697']
NOTE: Sr Luke was NOT asked to do this under OBEDIENCE but given the choice to do it through humility and charity!!! This matters!


The other thread about the movie, The Nun's Story with Audrey Hepburn as Sr Luke, a nursing sister, got me thinking about a particular incident that occured during her nursing training.

Sr Luke's immediate superior (not the Mother General from the Motherhouse) made the request that Sr Luke purposely fail her exams for the nursing certificate in Tropical Medicine. The reason given was that one of the other sisters was struggling with the course and might not pass or do well. The superior told Sr Luke, who was a star pupil in the class, that this would be an opportunity for her to practice humility and charity towards the other sister. She told Sr Luke that she could then repeat the course the following year. She did not order her to do this under obedience but gave her the choice.

Sister Luke asked if the Motherhouse could be notified if she agreed to do this act, but she was told that this would not be true humility so, no, the Motherhouse would not know that she had failed on purpose. This meant that not only would the whole community think that Sr Luke had failed the exam, but also her family, including her father, who was a renowned doctor/surgeon.

When it came time for the oral exam, Sr Luke was asked the first question and debated mentally with herself about whether or not to give the wrong answer, but after hesitating, she eventually answered with all the correct answers and passed quite highly. The other sister also passed, but not with as high a mark.

The poll is to ask your opinion about whether the superior should even have put Sr Luke in this position or not (later she was told by another superior that the first one should not have done that to her). And should the superior have had to clear this with the Motherhouse first, or at least notified them if Sr Luke had agreed to the plan?

The second question asks you to choose whether or not, once the actual request had been made, Sr Luke should have complied with the request in the interests of humility and charity, or whether she made the right choice in the matter, considering not only her family and herself, but also the expense of the course in the first place and the waste of time in having to repeat something she knew inside and out. And whether asking her to do this would really have benefited the other sister, as the superior felt it would, or whether that sister should have had the humility herself to accept that she was not as good as Sr Luke?

The third question is the hypothetical - what do you think you would have done in similar circumstances? A tough one this, since times have changed and attitudes and also who knows for sure what one would do in a hypothetical, but that's the fun part.

I had other questions, but only three were allowed by the poll maker! If they come to my mind later, I will post them for general responses... or if anyone has their own questions about this situation... let's hear them.

Please note : this is bound to be a topic that creates dissenting views - and as this is the Vocation Station and not the Debate Table, please let's all be nice - no personal cricitcisms directed at those who disagree with your point of view and no snide comments directed at anyone in particular. We can all agree to disagree with charity - otherwise, as my mother used to say, "It will end in tears!"
[/quote]



I said no to all of the questions.

First, the superior never should have suggested she do so. A large part of apostolic religious life is to be able to use one's natural gifts and talents for the furthering of God's Kingdom on Earth. Superiors are called to see the gifts and talents of the sisters in their care and to encourage the sister to use those gifts AND accept them as unmerited gifts of God.

I would not do it for two reasons. First, it would be imprudent and wasteful of community resources. My community is dedicated to education so it is actually in our Rule to accept the gift of an education by arduously working and dedicating ourselves to our studies for the Kingdom of God - so I have a natural dislike for the whole idea. It almost sounds blasphemous to my teacher ears! haha Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the superiors motives were really to help the other sister... something is fishy about the whole situation [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif[/img]. The other sister should have been encouraged, in charity and humility, to try her best and to honestly evaluate with community whether she was suited to that particular ministry. God calls us to what will make us happy - not what is easy - but not what we are obviously unsuited for. Humility is about knowing our gifts, talents, and weaknesses and giving them all for God's use. While it might fool the sisters and the teachers - God will still know.

Third - First, I would tell the superior that I listened to her opinion - since it was not an obedience - and that I was choosing not to take her suggestion. I would suggest that perhaps I could help the other sister with her studying. It would be wrong in my opinion to ignore her suggestion and do what I want. I would also, with respect to the superior, report the request to the higher authority at the appropriate time. I would report it out of concern for the well-being of the sisters under that superiors care - not for my own agenda or feelings.


This was a really fun one! I've never seen the movie, but the premise is so interesting!

[Sister Marie]

I didn't see about the added on question so I wanted to answer that one too.

In my community, the sisters serve primarily as educators and it is very very very easy for us to get caught up in work all the time. School is a 24 hour a day job. I see 120 students a day - there are papers, sports games, special dinners, trips, church events, and so on constantly. I am constantly trying to monitor myself so I don't go one way too far. On one hand - I have been called by God to this particular ministry in this place and it matters for me to be present in that way to my apostolate. On the other hand - I safeguard community exercises very carefully. I won't miss our evening prayers and dinner for anything other than a larger community meeting or illness and that is something I have promised to myself. However, there is a sister I used to live with who excused herself from community life all the time. It iwas really difficult on our local convent - especially one as small as this one was - when there was one person missing. We wanted her to be around with us.

That said, I think it is first the sisters responsibility to prioritize in her heart and soul what is most important in her life and if she is not living up to that responsibility to be called to it by the superior. So yes, I think the superior was responsible to hold her accountable - but it is hard to do it in a charitable and loving way sometimes so I can understand her position.

[Nunsense]

Everyone's answers have all been so thoughtful and considered and I am glad to see that I am not the only one who has had difficulty with some of these questions - imagine how Sr Luke herself felt!

For anyone who has not seen the movie, I would highly recommend getting it on DVD - watch it it for the direction, the acting and the storyline, which might have been dramatised for Hollywood, but it also quite faithful to the book, which was based on a true story (albeit novelised and certainly changed in some particulars). I have read other accounts of pre-Vat 2 convents (even active apostolates) that were similar in attitudes, which in my mind, were often 'cult-like'. I am a lover of traditions and rituals myself, but I also like a strong dose of common sense, so it is nice to see when community has found a healthy balance in this.

As for the movie, yes, it does end sadly if you are looking at it from the perspective of her leaving religious life but there are also so many interesting things in it that can help one to think about religious life in a deeper way. This movie raised so many questions in my mind - these were just some of them, and although I would have loved the happy ending (just as I would have loved one for the Singing Nun as well), I accept that in reality, sometimes this doesn't happen. But just looking at the story in more depth, we can see how difficult some of the situations were and we can perhaps learn some things that might help us in our own discernment and practice of religious life!

Thank you Sr Marie for your insightful comments about community life and your opinions on the storyline. I would really like to hear from you again after you have seen the movie!! Audrey Hepburn's portrayal of a woman torn apart by interior conflict and struggle was just beautiful. Of course, we have to remember that this was a long time ago.. but I think it still has relevance to us today.

[truthfinder]

I don't think that Sr. Luke failing the exam would have been an example of true humility. To me, if she did fail, she could always think rather pridefully that she was entitled to go to the Congo, or pass the exam or whatever. Humility isn't always about humiliating oneself, its about knowing and presenting your own talents properly before God and others. I think it would really be the other sister who would need to be humble if she didn't do well on the test. Falsely inflating her confidence in her self would probably more dangerous both spiritually and for her patients than letting her take the blow of doing poorly on the test.

[BarbTherese]

Spiritual pride is never all that far away. One overcomes oneself in something or other, or some act of 'virtue' and one needs to watch out for that spiritual pride!!! Hence Sr Luke under other circumstances could have made a decision that did seem to manifest 'humillity' and 'charity' but it is the motivation that is the core and defines virtue or its lack - and motivation being spiritually sound, one needs to watch out for that most insidious of failures and human weaknesses in the spiritual person : spiritual pride. Sometimes we can make a huge investment in our own spiritual progress and pat ourselves on the back all the way as we 'progress'. The investment is in our own 'virtue' rather than "I have only done my duty" (***see below) for love of God. Detachment from our own spiritual progress is difficult. It does not mean, of course, that we do not make real effort to progress - but it does mean that when we do make progress, we are very much aware we still have a very long way to go and when we fail, we are not devestated nor disturbed. We repent, confess if we should, and then go on as if nothing had happened.


About life in community. The Vatican Document "Fraternal Life in Community" (excellent document) stresses the great importance and centrality of community life in religious life. It also states, I think it was FLinC, that difficult members are sent by The Lord into the community to hone the virtue of the sisters (see below - the statement was my paraphrasing or interpretation rightly or wrongly!!!). Challenging perspective and it does remind me of St. Therese and the difficult Sr. Peter in St Therese's community. St. Therese went out of her way to be friendly, caring and supportive of her (I think Sr Peter was in a wheelchair) and eventually found that she really did love the hard to get on with Sr. Peter.

_______________________

[i]*** [b]Luke Ch17[/b] "So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do"[/i]


[b]Fraternal Life in Commmuntiy[/b]: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccscrlife/documents/rc_con_ccscrlife_doc_02021994_fraternal-life-in-community_en.html
38. Difficulties

[i]"A special occasion for human growth and Christian maturity lies in living with persons who suffer, who are not at ease in community, and who thus are an occasion of suffering for others and of disturbance in community life.
We must first of all ask about the source of such suffering. It may be caused by a character defect, commitments that seem too burdensome, serious gaps in formation, excessively rapid changes over recent years, excessively authoritarian forms of government, or by spiritual difficulties.
There may be some situations when the one in authority needs to remind members that life in common sometimes requires sacrifice and can become a form of maxima poenitentia, grave penance."[/i]

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' timestamp='1306400533' post='2246157']
About life in community. The Vatican Document "Fraternal Life in Community" (excellent document) stresses the great importance and centrality of community life in religious life. It also states, I think it was FLinC, that difficult members are sent by The Lord into the community to hone the virtue of the sisters (see below - the statement was my paraphrasing or interpretation rightly or wrongly!!!). Challenging perspective and it does remind me of St. Therese and the difficult Sr. Peter in St Therese's community. St. Therese went out of her way to be friendly, caring and supportive of her (I think Sr Peter was in a wheelchair) and eventually found that she really did love the hard to get on with Sr. Peter.

[/quote]


One of my sisters regularly had various members of the community either in tears or very angry. She particularly upset me at one point. With her consent, the prioress told me a little of her history, and from this I became aware that she was quite possibly giving more of herself that maybe most of the community. The love and respect I then had for her was a shock to me, and she is my inspiration now as I struggle to return to Carmel.

It takes irritation to make an oyster a pearl.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1306400992' post='2246158']
One of my sisters regularly had various members of the community either in tears or very angry. She particularly upset me at one point. With her consent, the prioress told me a little of her history, and from this I became aware that she was quite possibly giving more of herself that maybe most of the community. The love and respect I then had for her was a shock to me, and she is my inspiration now as I struggle to return to Carmel.

It takes irritation to make an oyster a pearl.
[/quote]
Thank you very much for sharing, FC. We often just never know what lays behind irritating or even bad behaviour of some kind - over and above that, speaking for myself I am guiltyof irritating or even bad behaviour and nothing behind it except perhaps hurting pride or a simply a lousy mood and since others need be near me under such circumstances and can be very kind despite it - then I know I owe the same favour to others when they are irritating or upsetting me. I know it, I dont always make the grade.

[quote]It takes irritation to make an oyster a pearl.[/quote] What a great statement and very true. I will keep it if I may and quote it if I can but not own the authorship.

If you aspire to Carmel, then may The Lord be with you and bless your efforts and grant you success.

God bless - Barb