Jump to content

40 years later, is it time to reconsider the religious habit?


Recommended Posts

Well, wait a minute. I think I see where BarbaraTherese is coming from, cuz when I first read Sr. Mary Catharine's post and said I needed to go think about it, the thing I was needing to think about was the taking of private vows. Cuz if one surrenders one's God-given freedom through the taking of vows alone, then one doesn't need to be in a religious community to do that. And then wouldn't the taking of the (private) vows essentially place one in that "objectively superior, more-perfect" state that religious enjoy?

I recall that, when I discerned with the Monastic Family of Bethlehem, I learned that the sisters take their final vows privately, in their cells. They do that because they're hermits, but the point is: Those vows aren't taken publicly.

So... is there a difference?

(BTW: Sr. Mary Catharine, great analogy to wedding vows through the example of your friend. That really helped to make things clear.

Also, beatitude, I'm glad you mentioned the third-class citizen thing, cuz I think that needs talking about. We should really start a thread on that...)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • BarbaraTherese

    21

  • beatitude

    8

  • Gabriela

    7

  • Sister Marie

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just wanted to add that we also have Sister Christina as part of the vowed religious group in this discussion at least. You are right beatitude that the externals sometimes confuse the essentia

I'm glad Ignatius wrote what she did in response to this comment.  I do hope that in rereading it you see that there would have been a better way to express an opinion in favor of habits rather than p

I am sorry for the way I phrased my statements

33 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

And then wouldn't the taking of the (private) vows essentially place one in that "objectively superior, more-perfect" state that religious enjoy?

It is celibacy that The Church states is objectively superior to a non  celibate state in life..........and to me, simply because Jesus was celibate.  The religious life is THE state of perfection as Jesus lived, poor chaste celibacy and obedient and it is vastly different indeed to the conditions under which I live my private vows.  Vastly different!  And I am not in THE state of perfection.  I think my quote from JPII says it in this post here JPII on THE state of Perfection (religious life) and perfection itself

Some can get all carried away by the term objectively superior and what is and what is not an actual state of perfection or the state of perfection............ and some can stop short of thinking the concepts right through paying attention to language and implications. 

Nothing whatsoever on the earth or in Heaven is more superior and objectively a state of perfection than The Will of God and living faithful to it.

Religious can be released from their public vows, as can I from my private vows. Although all I need do is ask a priest to dispense me, more or less.  For religious it is a far more complicated and serious move for quite obvious reasons.  All this is according to Canon Law...........the motivation to be dispensed is another matter as is the intention in making public or private vows in the first place.

 

As for 'third class citizens' in The Church.  Those in private vows for example might FEEL and THINK they are third class citizens and such might even apply in general Catholic cultural thinking - but it is NOT the objective truth of the matter.  What matters more to me personally than anything else is the truth of matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gabriela said:

And then wouldn't the taking of the (private) vows essentially place one in that "objectively superior, more-perfect" state that religious enjoy?

In my opinion, when we're talking about the objective superiority of consecrated life as a general category from a theological perspective, I do think that a private vow could be as falling into that category. 

14 hours ago, Gabriela said:

I recall that, when I discerned with the Monastic Family of Bethlehem, I learned that the sisters take their final vows privately, in their cells. They do that because they're hermits, but the point is: Those vows aren't taken publicly.

In canon law, a "public" vow is a vow that's officially received in the name of the Church, regardless of how many people actually witness the making of that vow. So if a Sister of Bethlehem makes profession alone in her hermitage with only her superior present, that still is technically a public vow (albeit one made in de facto privacy).

On the other hand, a private vow is a vow which is made on one's own personal initiative, and which is not officially received in the name of the Church. Again, this distinction is completely independent of how many witness are present. It is theoretically possible for someone to make a private vow right after a Mass, with the local bishop and all her family and friends as a witness, with this vow still being considered "private." 

I wrote a bit about public vs. private vows here: http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2010/12/consecrated-virginity-versus-private.html

13 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Some can get all carried away by the term objectively superior and what is and what is not an actual state of perfection or the state of perfection............ and some can stop short of thinking the concepts right through paying attention to language and implications. 

I honestly think that most people here on VS are able to handle this terminology and these kind of concepts. Some might disagree with whether or not those expressions are the most helpful or accurate, but I think the community members here are generally thoughtful, careful readers and posters, and therefore are unlikely to read something like this and come away wrongly convinced that Church considers them third-class citizens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:
15 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Some can get all carried away by the term objectively superior and what is and what is not an actual state of perfection or the state of perfection............ and some can stop short of thinking the concepts right through paying attention to language and implications. 

I honestly think that most people here on VS are able to handle this terminology and these kind of concepts. Some might disagree with whether or not those expressions are the most helpful or accurate, but I think the community members here are generally thoughtful, careful readers and posters, and therefore are unlikely to read something like this and come away wrongly convinced that Church considers them third-class citizens

Thank you, Sponsa.  I was not speaking of those that are regular contributors on VS so much as more general readers, including lurkers.  I am most always conscious of the latter because I think it is likely/possible some come to Catholic discussion sites for information.  I used "some" (persons) to keep it quite general.  Personally, I think that the terms are accurate, spot on - but not so much helpful possibly unless qualified so there can be no doubt of just what "objective" indicates. 

After all, as I have stated in previous posts, what can be more superior than The Will of God? 

Even if a person chooses and lives out a vocation that was not strictly God's Particular Will for their life, ever after in that particular chosen vocation, The Will of God (and something else not generally understood in relation to vocation in this instance) will be their faithful and loving guide and support to holiness and with every necessary Grace - and I don't think that that is quite generally understood either. 

 It doesn't take too many words, I don't think, to qualify "objective" and far less words than I could probably attempt.  In this way, there is no room for problems for even the most uneducated of Catholics and others one would hope.  It would be more helpful too if there was an explanation of why indeed certain states are regarded as objectively superior - and that would not take too many words either.

At this point in our journey, The Church as hierarchy desires to underscore the holy nature and great importance of the Sacrament of Marriage as this Sacrament indeed is.....and in the same breathe as it were stating that the celibate state and the consecrated state (Canon Law) are the superior states and vocations.  The ordinary Catholic can stumble over that as not making much sense at all.  I am yet to read somewhere (and I am not stating it does not therefore exist) that nothing can be superior to God's Will - and explaining the concept fully in relation to vocations and living them out..........such would be helpful and serve to eliminate (I would hope) any misunderstandings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with BT that "objectively superior" is probably not correctly understood by the majority of people who read (rather than post) in the VS. I think that the dominant understanding of "objective" in our society will lead people to interpret a statement of the objective superiority of the RL to mean: "They are officially, without question, proven to be superior to other people". And that is not what it means.

I disagree with BT that it is easy to explain what it really does mean, and I also think the dominant meaning of "objective" in our language and culture is likely to always creep back in when the word is heard, even for a person who did once learn what it properly means in the Church.

I thought for a moment that we could start a poll to see who really does understand, but that would be pointless, because the lurkers don't have accounts to vote!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gabriela said:

I disagree with BT that it is easy to explain what it really does mean, and I also think the dominant meaning of "objective" in our language and culture is likely to always creep back in when the word is heard, even for a person who did once learn what it properly means in the Church.

You may well be correct, Gabriela.  The way I think of it is that if I had a list of all vocations and had to arrange them in order superiority, on top of the list would be religious life as the objectively superior vocation of them all as that way of life most conducive to growth in Charity and most closely mirrors the life of Christ on earth and is a "a school of Charity" (Summa Theologica Question 189 Art 1) - and an intellectual exercise only. 

  However, where a person is concerned and the real journey of life, the most superior vocation becomes that vocation to which they are called and this is the subjectively superior vocation for that person. God's Will I think personally is probably most commonly/quite loosely indicated at least initially by the three A's and it is God who gifts the following dispositions, while some may have other indications:

1 - Attraction to the vocation

2 - Ability or motivation to live the vocation

3 - Acceptance into the vocation

I do think that the more educated could define the difference between objective superiority and subjective superiority far better than I have done and far more concisely and accurately.

________________________

Edit: Just occurred to me that the subjectively superior vocation for a person might also be the objectively superior vocation for the person ........... but now I am out of my depth I think.

..........further occurs that one is an intellectual exercise, the other is related to life and living, the journey of an individual.

 

 

 

Edited by BarbaraTherese
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gabriela said:

"objectively superior" is probably not correctly understood by the majority of people who read (rather than post) in the VS. I think that the dominant understanding of "objective" in our society will lead people to interpret a statement of the objective superiority of the RL to mean: "They are officially, without question, proven to be superior to other people". And that is not what it means.

I agree with the above, and once the person arrives at "They are officially, without question, proven to be superior to other people"  it can then lead on to grade all the vocations as designating the grades of superiority throughout the whole Church according to one's vocation and The Church is thought of as a class system.........upper class and lower class.  The problems that flow on from that can be that is a (sometimes unconscious I think) reasoning about spirituality and holiness, the following of The Gospel, that it is the business of the upper classes, while the lower classes just have to live their secular lives keeping the Commandments of God and The Church, nothing more.

Once in Australia the 'lower classes' (the married and laity not in consecrated life)would attend Mass on Sunday and Holy Days and Confession on Saturdays every so often - sometimes family rosary.  Nowadays most often, it is only Mass on Sunday if they can.  Our Sunday Mass numbers will often fall according to sporting functions for example.  However, this past Easter Sunday was packed to the rafters as never before.  Now that might be a good thing, but it might also indicate the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just generally speaking, it seems to me that The Church as hierarchy has a need to speak to the well educated and also to the not well educated.  We are all The Faithful.  Probably the not so well educated are in the majority.  The Church as hierarchy in addressing a particular subject or subjects sometimes, even most often, largely is speaking in terms more for the well educated and those not so well educated can get things wrong, misunderstand.......or will ignore Church documents altogether gleaning any information from media......all kinds of media, any kind of media.

Most often, I can only read Church Documents for example with a dictionary open.

If The Church 'looses' the not so well educated then it seems to me the loss is a loss in the majority of The Faithful.

 

Edited by BarbaraTherese
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara and I have been in touch by PM and she's asked that I apologise publicly to her for my comments earlier in this thread. I shouldn't have made assumptions about the reasoning behind her posts when I didn't know what it was. I'm sorry for that and for being irritable about it, as well as for upsetting her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for PM's remaining private........I guess Private Message is a misnomer on Phatmass.

My request for a public apology was based on far more than what is stated. It was also about statements made about me personally that are quite untrue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbara, I did not share the content of your PMs and I don't think mentioning their existence is a violation of anybody's privacy. I have apologised both publicly and privately now and I don't think there is any more I can do. If you aren't happy, please take it up with another moderator. I think I've said all I can here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So stating publicly that I had asked you to make a public apology via a private message is not disclosing the content of a private message? 

No problem, I'm outta here - and this time I won't return.  Wished I hadn't returned in the first place.  And, laughing here, I have absolutely no illusions about being missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...