Secular Institutes

[BarbTherese]

quoting Little Flower: "Not thats some frumpy lady who doesn't know how to dress"

One way of looking at things for sure - on the flip side "detached from worldly standards"?

Edited September 18, 2011 by BarbaraTherese

[Nunsense]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' timestamp='1316337145' post='2306181']

Important observation. I think many who left religious life and the priesthood during the 'great exodus' post V2 had probably embraced the vocation for all the wrong reasons - hence when these reasons no longer existed, they floundered as to what their vocation was all about. The very nature of the evangelical counsels is that one puts one's whole life into God's Hands, gifts to God one's whole life, and whatever He may ordain, whatever His Divine Providence ordains/asks and in that one is invested and come what may.By making a vow of obedience canonically in a religious order, one is embracing that God's Will for one in all aspects is expressed through one's superior and The Rule.

I think that the habit is an important witness and has great value, but if that is the reason that one embraces religious life, then if the Order one has entered for whatever reason decides to relinquish the habit, then there just might be floundering over the vocation - what it is all about. Although it is not rare to enter for the wrong reasons possibly and as formation continues in the life, the reasons for staying are maturing and flowering along with the spiritua religious life.

Nowadays too monasteries in particular can have beautiful buildings and grounds but if membership starts to decline, these may need to be abandoned. This has happened in our diocese and the nuns have sold their beautiful monastery and the three remaining aged sisters live in a house, but never question their vocation or what has happened in a negative sort of way. If ill health in advanced years asks it they will be in a nursing home. They remain happy and joyful women.
[/quote]


Barb - I don't mean to start a disagreement here but I think this is a very limited interpretation of the exodus from religious life post Vatican 2. I doubt that the majority of nuns and priests left because of habits or even other externals. The changes that occured at the time were very intense in many deep ways, theologically, spiritually and materially and some priests and nuns felt a real conflict of conscience for many years as things changed in one direction after another (the changes occured over decades and were not limited to externals like habits) and perhaps some religious might have identified too strongly with the laity and their problems at the time as well, causing interior conflicts but even this is only one of the reasons. I know many religious (some who left, some who stayed) who had to go through these decades, and like the laity themselves, they often felt as if the ship (of the Catholic Church) were floundering on the seas. Many laity also left (the Church) over these same decades, or if they didn't leave entirely, they changed their attitudes to the point where they felt they could 'pick and choose' what to believe -- all because of the chaos and confusion of the times.

Indeed, perhaps some vocations were not well founded in some religious or priests, but I really think that the reasons for the mass exodus - of both religious and laity - is too complex to write off with a few platitudes about their various reasons for doing so. I, myself was discerning religious life at the time, and visiting a few convents, and the pain I could see over what was happening is one of the reasons that I didn't enter at the time. But, God does work in unusual ways because I wasn't even a Catholic before Vat 2, and yet He managed to call to me and bring me into the Church during a time of the great exodus for many! God works in ways that we can't begin to imagine, so I just want to show the utmost respect for all those who have dedicated their lives to Christ, even if they felt they had to leave - for whatever reason at all.... I am sure it wasn't easy for any of them to do so.

[BarbTherese]

Edit: Duplicate post again. Either me or my computer is playing up! - probably me!

Edited September 18, 2011 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1316338713' post='2306186']


Barb - I don't mean to start a disagreement here but I think this is a very limited interpretation of the exodus from religious life post Vatican 2. I doubt that the majority of nuns and priests left because of habits or even other externals. The changes that occured at the time were very intense in many deep ways, theologically, spiritually and materially and some priests and nuns felt a real conflict of conscience for many years as things changed in one direction after another (the changes occured over decades and were not limited to externals like habits) and perhaps some religious might have identified too strongly with the laity and their problems at the time as well, causing interior conflicts but even this is only one of the reasons. I know many religious (some who left, some who stayed) who had to go through these decades, and like the laity themselves, they often felt as if the ship (of the Catholic Church) were floundering on the seas. Many laity also left (the Church) over these same decades, or if they didn't leave entirely, they changed their attitudes to the point where they felt they could 'pick and choose' what to believe -- all because of the chaos and confusion of the times.

Indeed, perhaps some vocations were not well founded in some religious or priests, but I really think that the reasons for the mass exodus - of both religious and laity - is too complex to write off with a few platitudes about their various reasons for doing so. I, myself was discerning religious life at the time, and visiting a few convents, and the pain I could see over what was happening is one of the reasons that I didn't enter at the time. But, God does work in unusual ways because I wasn't even a Catholic before Vat 2, and yet He managed to call to me and bring me into the Church during a time of the great exodus for many! God works in ways that we can't begin to imagine, so I just want to show the utmost respect for all those who have dedicated their lives to Christ, even if they felt they had to leave - for whatever reason at all.... I am sure it wasn't easy for any of them to do so.
[/quote]

Good comments! - and I am sure you are correct and the exodus was not solely due to externals and yes, changes were in progress over a long period and I am sure those in religious life were probably wondering " what next". Laity too went through a period of confusion and many left The Church for one reason or another.

[krissylou]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1316173375' post='2305355']
So, is anybody else on the phorum feeling a call to the consecrated single life?

I'm feeling like a violin with one string over here!
[/quote]

I don't remember anyone looking specifically at secular institutes.

Shana used to post regularly -- she was discerning religious life for a while but was becoming more drawn to being a consecrated virgin.

This is NOT THE SAME but I've spent much of the last year looking at various third order-y type things (similar to Benedictine oblates, Secular Franciscans, OCDS, etc.) and at this point am leaning pretty strongly to one in particular.

If you continue down this path, I for one would be fascinated to hear more about why you are drawn to a secular institute with a Carmelite spirituality rather than OCDS. (To the extent such things are articulable, which they may not be!)

[BarbTherese]

The reason I have never applied to a Third Order or a Secular Institute of Consecrated life is, in the main with those that have had some attraction, is because I would need to be a distant member and am reluctant to apply to same unless I can have ongoing involvement in actual personal contact community life, rather than possibly once a year if that. I found that my attraction waned once I realized that I would need to be a distant member with minimal contact. Certainly I was very attracted to the O.Carm secular institute of consecrated life "The Leaven" but since they are only located in the UK and Ireland and I could become a distant member, the cost of travel to me would be a small fortune. Not impossible, but my contact with the community would be very minimal indeed and perhaps only the once in my lifetime that their leadership suggested to me. My attraction to "The Leaven" O.Carm was because it is consecrated life and also I have long had contact (over 35 years now) with Carmel where my best pal OCD is prioress. However there is no community of Third Order of Carmel OCDS in my home state. Attraction to Carmelite spirituality began for me with Confirmation and my choice of St. Therese as my patron saint and this attraction continued through familiarity with the writings of the Carmelite saints and probably in a big way St Teresa of Avila and St John of The Cross. I did in my teens apply to Carmel and was accepted to enter when I turned 21 and that began my very close contact with Carmelite nuns. Long story!

I was amazed that a certain well established Third Order in another state in Australia expressed great concern even as a distant member because of Bipolar and from the emails that I did receive, I decided that their concepts and attitudes re mental illness were not well informed at all and not a good move to continue with possible membership.

Things are unfolding for me further, however, with a religious order in my diocese although it would not be consecrated life, but private vows. And if there are any changes to a Secular Institute of Consecrated Life re this religious order it is absolutely unlikely to happen in my lifetime - short always of miracles. I am happy nowadays to just let The Lord lead wherever He may and about time at 65 years of age!
I don't mean that this religious order of sisters (not nuns)may change to a secular order, just to clarify. They are forming an affiliate or Third Order type community under private vows and a rule of life. My attaction here is that the way of life I am living could continue and with ongoing formalized formation and with personal regular contact with my community. This at some point, as potential only, in the future could become a secular institute of consecrated life under the umbrella of the religious order - just as"The Leaven" is a Carmelite secular institute of consecrated life.

Edited September 19, 2011 by BarbaraTherese

[beatitude]

[quote name='krissylou' timestamp='1316358926' post='2306237']
If you continue down this path, I for one would be fascinated to hear more about why you are drawn to a secular institute with a Carmelite spirituality rather than OCDS. (To the extent such things are articulable, which they may not be!)
[/quote]

I expect my answer to this question will deepen and evolve as time passes, but for now I can say that the principal things drawing me to the secular institute rather than the OCDS are the vows. SI members take the same vows as religious - poverty, chastity, and obedience. They form a complete way of life, just as wedding vows do. I know some people who find the wedding vows so beautiful that they dream of the day when they can make them side by side with their spouse. Those vows fit who they are. It's the same with me and these three. When I hear 'poverty', I think of the beatitudes (now you know where my screenname comes from ) and the words of St Paul: "He must increase, I must decrease." I remember how St Francis wanted his followers to be 'poor in fact but rich in spirit'. The thought of promising myself to this feels liberating, as though it will make it possible for me to love God in a deeper way than I ever have before.

Chastity opens up a new perspective on my work. Before I started my Master's I was doing a lot of care work with very vulnerable people, and when I finish I have an offer of a post in a rehabilitation centre for prostitutes who struggle with heroin addiction and all sorts of other problems. Many of those women haven't got anything in their lives but their addiction - no family (at least not family that they're in contact with), no education, no chance of a job outside prostitution. Work with vulnerable and marginalized people is something I have always been drawn to, and I have a deep sense that if I'm going to work with individuals who have so little, then I need to give them my all. That means no husband or children of my own. I have a deep quiet sense that this is necessary. I also feel that celibacy is vital to my personal prayer life in some way, but I don't understand why that might be. I'll get back to you on it in a few years, or maybe a decade or two.

Obedience for me is a willingness to sacrifice personal ambition, but more than ambition - my fears and worries too. I think our pet anxieties are as valuable to us as our ambitions. I am scared of dying alone. I am scared of what will happen after my relatives die. I know that obedience is an invitation to radical trust, and I can see how trust in this form is necessary for my life - both for me as an individual, for how I relate to God, and for how I relate to others. It is a part of my growth in holiness.

The OCDS isn't the same. It's for anyone who feels an affinity with Carmel - priests, religious, married people, singles. If a married woman joined it, for example, it would enrich her prayer life in a specific way and give a Carmelite twist to the vocation she already had as a wife. Being a member of the OCDS might nourish her vocation, but it isn't a vocation in and of itself. Of course, I could stay a single person and join the OCDS, but I am too drawn to those vows. The rule of the secular institute also asks more of you (two hours of mental prayer each day instead of thirty minutes, for example) and I feel the need for that structured rigor.

[EWIE]

[color=#800000][b][size=4][u]A clarification[/u];[/size][/b][/color]
[color=#800000][b][size=4]The OCDS is considered a "Call" by the Discalced Carmelites. It is considered a branch of the Carmelite tree and is regarded on a par with the Sisters and the Priests.[/size][/b][/color]
[color=#800000][b][size=4]And after a certain number of years following "promises" in the OCDS community, one is permitted to make vows.[/size][/b][/color]

[beatitude]

I didn't mean to suggest that a member of the OCDS isn't equal to a priest or a nun, or somehow not a genuine part of Carmel. But my understanding was that it is not considered a vocation in the sense that religious life, marriage, or consecrated virginity/single life are. I took this from a close friend who is a member of the OCDS. I asked about vows, and she said that she had made what they call a 'Definitive Promise' after six years of temporary promises, but that this isn't the same thing - she can still get married if she wants to, and that won't be in conflict with her membership of the OCDS. She's pretty sure that her vocation is marriage.

I didn't know it was possible to live the consecrated single life through the OCDS, though. That's interesting to know.

Edited September 30, 2011 by beatitude

[krissylou]

[quote name='EWIE' timestamp='1317397992' post='2312841']
[color=#800000][b][size=4]And after a certain number of years following "promises" in the OCDS community, one is permitted to make vows.[/size][/b][/color]
[/quote]

Yes -- but not QUITE the same way that beatitude was talking about. (I looked into this.) So, for the most obvious one an OCDS may make a "vow of chastity" -- but that is CHASTITY not CELIBACY. Married people who are faithful to each other are chaste. If an OCDS who is married makes a vow of chastity, that would not affect normal married life. And if that person's spouse died, he or she would be as free to remarry as anyone else. If a single person who is OCDS makes the vow of chastity that would not preclude the ability to marry.

(Of course an OCDS person could also make a private vow of celibacy/virginity, but that is a somewhat different beast.)

Thanks, beatitude! That helps a lot!

[krissylou]

[quote name='EWIE' timestamp='1317397992' post='2312841']
[color=#800000][b][size=4]And after a certain number of years following "promises" in the OCDS community, one is permitted to make vows.[/size][/b][/color]
[/quote]

Yes -- but not QUITE the same way that beatitude was talking about. (I looked into this.) So, for the most obvious one an OCDS may make a "vow of chastity" -- but that is CHASTITY not CELIBACY. Married people who are faithful to each other are chaste. If an OCDS who is married makes a vow of chastity, that would not affect normal married life. And if that person's spouse died, he or she would be as free to remarry as anyone else. If a single person who is OCDS makes the vow of chastity that would not preclude the ability to marry.

(Of course an OCDS person could also make a private vow of celibacy/virginity, but that is a somewhat different beast.)

Thanks, beatitude! That helps a lot!

[quote name='EWIE' timestamp='1317397992' post='2312841']
[color=#800000][b][size=4]And after a certain number of years following "promises" in the OCDS community, one is permitted to make vows.[/size][/b][/color]
[/quote]

Yes -- but not QUITE the same way that beatitude was talking about. (I looked into this.) So, for the most obvious one an OCDS may make a "vow of chastity" -- but that is CHASTITY not CELIBACY. Married people who are faithful to each other are chaste. If an OCDS who is married makes a vow of chastity, that would not affect normal married life. And if that person's spouse died, he or she would be as free to remarry as anyone else. If a single person who is OCDS makes the vow of chastity that would not preclude the ability to marry.

(Of course an OCDS person could also make a private vow of celibacy/virginity, but that is a somewhat different beast.)

Thanks, beatitude! That helps a lot!

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1317392766' post='2312810']
SI members take the same vows as religious - poverty, chastity, and obedience. [/quote]
A qualification -- there are secular institutes that do accept married couples into their membership. I looked on the US secular instititues website. So in some cases you can be married and be a fully consecrated member of a secular institute.

What wasn't clear is if all secular institutes take vows or promises of the evangelical counsels. And the nature of it. (What it consists of). It does seem that there is some discretion here and I would think each group is different?

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1317416151' post='2312981']
A qualification -- there are secular institutes that do accept married couples into their membership. I looked on the US secular instititues website. So in some cases you can be married and be a fully consecrated member of a secular institute.

What wasn't clear is if all secular institutes take vows or promises of the evangelical counsels. And the nature of it. (What it consists of). It does seem that there is some discretion here and I would think each group is different?
[/quote]

Whoops. It should have read "clarification" instead of qualification. That's the spanglish getting confused (I thought the wrong word in english but I knew what word I wanted, yet I wasn't thinking in spanish; hard to explain).

[mme_hardy]

[quote name='Little Flower' timestamp='1316310421' post='2306081']
I am only considering communities that wear a full habit. Something to consider is that the habit is really a sign of the whole mentality of the community. The really liberal orders are the ones who abandoned the habit, and its not just the habit. They're all "Peace and Justice" and women's rights and stuff. Its hard to explain, but its the whole package I don't want, not [i]just[/i] the lack of habits. And besides, I feel that a habit is a witness to the world. Refusing to wear a habit is like a married person refusing to wear their wedding ring. When I'm walking around town or whatever (or not if Im cloistered!) I want people to say, hey, thats a nun. Not thats some frumpy lady who doesn't know how to dress. Because the uninhabited nuns (get it? UNINHABITED!!! no habits, and nobody joins them either!) don't wear normal clothes anyway. At least the ones I've seen.
[/quote]

This is, fair warning, a Protestant take; I was raised Society of Friends, and a big part of our spiritual tradition is that there is a light of God shining in every person, and that every person must follow that light as best s/he can. I'm Episcopal now, but that philosophy left a deep stamp on my soul.

It is completely valid and appropriate for some people to say "I want an order with a habit, it speaks to me spiritually and as a sign of commitment." There are many honorable foundations, both ancient and modern, that have the sign of the habit as an important part of their lives with God.

However, there also was a period in Church history when bishops insisted that all orders wear habits -- including orders whose charism specifically was against habits. St. Louise de Marillac of the Daughters of Charity said, "“You will have no veil, save only that of modesty; no cloister, but the streets of the city, the hovels of the poor, the classroom, or the wards of hospitals; your only cell will be a hired room, and your grill, holy obedience.” You can't get clearer than that -- her order was to be a missionary order, their clothing the same as that that of the people they served.

Part of Vatican II was for orders to examine their origional charism and to think where they had fallen away from that charism. When the Daughters of Charity simplified their habits into street clothes, they were doing exactly what St. Louise had mandated three hundred years before. It was not a falling away, it was a returning to roots. The same goes for St. Elizabeth Ann Seton's Sisters (later Daughters) of Charity -- they were founded in the Vincentian charism. Originally they wore simple widows' clothes, and over time they continued to wear the widow's clothes of the 19th century long after they had become visible costumes rather than statements of membership in the local community. When Vatican II came, the Daughters of Charity reverted to simple clothing in blue or white [i]because that was what their foundress had intended[/i].

It's not as simple as "habit: traditional/no habit: modern". Some Orders -- especially active orders -- have a long and distinguished tradition of dressing to fit in with the people they serve.

Edited October 1, 2011 by mme_hardy

[Nunsense]

[quote name='mme_hardy' timestamp='1317484915' post='2313368']

This is, fair warning, a Protestant take; I was raised Society of Friends, and a big part of our spiritual tradition is that there is a light of God shining in every person, and that every person must follow that light as best s/he can. I'm Episcopal now, but that philosophy left a deep stamp on my soul.

It is completely valid and appropriate for some people to say "I want an order with a habit, it speaks to me spiritually and as a sign of commitment." There are many honorable foundations, both ancient and modern, that have the sign of the habit as an important part of their lives with God.

However, there also was a period in Church history when bishops insisted that all orders wear habits -- including orders whose charism specifically was against habits. St. Louise de Marillac of the Daughters of Charity said, "“You will have no veil, save only that of modesty; no cloister, but the streets of the city, the hovels of the poor, the classroom, or the wards of hospitals; your only cell will be a hired room, and your grill, holy obedience.” You can't get clearer than that -- her order was to be a missionary order, their clothing the same as that that of the people they served.

Part of Vatican II was for orders to examine their origional charism and to think where they had fallen away from that charism. When the Daughters of Charity simplified their habits into street clothes, they were doing exactly what St. Louise had mandated three hundred years before. It was not a falling away, it was a returning to roots. The same goes for St. Elizabeth Ann Seton's Sisters (later Daughters) of Charity -- they were founded in the Vincentian charism. Originally they wore simple widows' clothes, and over time they continued to wear the widow's clothes of the 19th century long after they had become visible costumes rather than statements of membership in the local community. When Vatican II came, the Daughters of Charity reverted to simple clothing in blue or white [i]because that was what their foundress had intended[/i].

It's not as simple as "habit: traditional/no habit: modern". Some Orders -- especially active orders -- have a long and distinguished tradition of dressing to fit in with the people they serve.
[/quote]


Thank you for this lovely post. The habit issue has been a touchy one on phatmass for all the years I have been here, and I have learned a lot over those years. I originally felt that all nuns SHOULD wear a habit, regardless of any other consideration, but my views on that have changed as I have come to know personally many nuns who don't wear a habit (or wear one at certain times only or wear various modified versions of a habit) - all for reasons that are significant and relevant to them and their community. I am a lot less intolerant than I was when I first started discerning, and now I see things a little differently. I love your comment that

[i]"I want an order with a habit, it speaks to me spiritually and as a sign of commitment." [/i]

which accepts that this is a personal choice to make, and not a value judgment on those who make a different choice, for whatever reason.

Two dear friends of mine right now are Mercy nuns, the last two of their community here in this bush town in rural Australia. Their convent was too big for them and was sold for use by a Catholic school, and they both (being biological sisters as well) moved back into their old family home (both parents are deceased). When they attend Mass, they wear their blue (modified for Australian heat) habits, but for many of their activities around town, they wear secular clothes (usually plain dresses). The come to the elderly hostel where I work and play cards with the residents. They run a second hand charity shop in town to raise funds for St Vincent de Paul society. The whole town knows these sisters and loves them - whether they are in habit or not. They have helped me since I first moved to this area and I adore them - I don't care what they wear!

Personally, I like the habit, and I loved wearing one and would love to do so again, but we always need to respect the choices made by each community - what is important is not what they wear, but that they have committed their lives to God.

Thanks for your post, mme_hardy.