Sister_Laurel Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The "Seven Pillars" have always been handed to me by anyone I have spoken to. First, the bishop, then the canonist, then my Dominican SD who has foundational experience. They make perfectly good sense, and if the canonists have never heard of them, I can see why new charisms have such a hard time getting started. Founders are encouraged to live the life in private as a Personal Prayer Rule first. Laity who know the founder are often attracted to what they're doing. They become a lay association, and the founder has their "third order." The adherents join the third order, and further discernment is done regarding a community. The group has to prove that they're serious about what they're doing before the clergy and religious will take them seriously. I don't see why the "Seven Pillars" can't be applied to eremitism as well. There won't be "persevering members," but the others apply to a certain extent. The yearly reports are part of having a private lay association, at least that was my understanding when I started Cloister Outreach. I used to send them when we first started, but hubby and babies came along, and I really wasn't doing that much, so I didn't bother to contact the local chancery. I became involved with vocations in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, started the vocations committee at our church, then had to move. I had even slated a monastic tour for St. Louis with rooms booked at Kendrick Seminary and a bus reserved, but hubby's job situation changed and we moved to NC. Now the kids are grown, and I've more time to devote to the emerging organizations. I have sent three substantial yearly reports by both email and snail mail. The former is more efficient and goes straight to his administrative assistant. Here is a pdf regarding lay associations: http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Associations.pdf Fr. Gambari's book was promoted by the Institute on Religious Life. They would not promote something that had not been vetted by their own clerical authority. There is really nothing more to say about the issue, at least from my perspective. What's done is done. I would prefer to get back to anticipating the arrival of Mary's Holy Baby. Blessings, Gemma Gemma, Wrong though I may be, I am afraid I have the impression you have gotten very practiced at throwing up clouds of dust to obscure the fact that you are making things up out of whole cloth --- or getting them from dated works now out of print, or writing about other things to distract from the emptiness of your responses. I am especially cognizant of the fact that you did not directly answer ANY of my questions regarding the reports you purportedly send/sent to the Diocese of Charlotte, nor those regarding the Diocese's ability to respond to requests for verification of your claims, etc. I am also cognizant of the fact that despite your sending these reports the Vicar General reported in February or March of 2010 you and your projects were "unknown to the diocese." Finally, it did not escape my notice that you did not respond at all to the whole idea that canon 603 is not meant to be used as a stopgap but is meant for those discerning LIFE vocations to solitary eremitical life. But let's look at your seven pillars. First let's be clear that these were put forward by you as normative and even as matters of canon law, not as suggestions or things which might be applicable "to a certain extent". The question I fielded from someone who was or sought to be a hermit with Cloisters Outreach certainly understood them to be normative. She also had questions about whether she should go to her own Bishop for profession under canon 603 or under yours since you were the "foundress" of what she was living. In any case let's be very clear that pillars are essential things without which something cannot stand. You listed: 1. Rule--what is your spirituality? Augustinian, Benedictine, Carmelite, etc. 2. Constitutions--how do you live your particular interpretation of the spirituality? 3. Horarium--how are you to spend your time? 4. Formation program/establishment of novitiate--the formation program will lead to a physical novitiate 5. Remunerative work--the diocese is not financially responsible for you 6. Stable source of habit parts--there are a number of habit makers out there 7. Three or four persevering members--Fr. Gambari says having some of the original aspirants is seen as good These are not part of Canon Law, That has already been established. It is not a matter of canonists not having heard of them more generally. It is a matter of fact that these canonists recognize they are NOT canonical, NOT normative --- helpful as they may be (to whatever extent) for institutes of consecrated life or even private associations. For hermits who seek to be admitted to public profession under canon 603 Rule and Constitutions are combined in a Rule or Plan of Life which itself is rooted in the hermit's lived experience of the life. One need not have this written before contacting a diocese and usually will not have done. Neither does one need to adopt any one particular spirituality to be a diocesan hermit. Instead one lives the essential elements of canon 603: stricter separation from the world, assiduous prayer and penance, the silence of solitude. If one is recognized in law one does so according to a Rule of Life she writes herself and lives under the supervision of her local Bishop. Stable habit parts are not mentioned nor are they essential (not in the sense of being a pillar!!). Not all hermits wear habits and some Bishops do not allow diocesan hermits in their dioceses to do so (they tend to see them as appropriate to members of communities, not for solitary hermits). This is something hermits work out WITH their Bishops and then ONLY when the hermit is approaching public profession. The reason is the wearing of a habit is part of the obligations and rights associated with canonical standing and a public vocation. If a hermit wishes to wear one before this the Bishop MUST give permission (habits are not self-assumed) and may do so for private use only. In my experience this is rare since the habit indicates the assumption of public rights and obligations and is a symbol of consecrated life. Most Bishops are careful about practices which do or may trivialize and empty habits of meaning (including bizarro habits, anachronistic and unhygienic habits, habits which mimic those of specific Orders or congregations, etc). There is nothing in Canon Law specifying remunerative work. Diocesan hermits are required to be self-supporting but that may include pensions, disability, assistance from benfactors, and so forth. (Begging is not very well thought of among contemporary hermits and as far as I know, no diocese will profess someone who depends on mendicancy alone.) In fact, hermits who must work full-time, especially outside the hermitage, are often not admitted to profession under canon 603. Some Bishops will not allow this at all --- even when the work is essentially solitary (like cleaning offices at night). Whatever a hermit does to support herself, "remunerative work" is not a pillar of the life. (Some degree of manual and intellectual labor tends to be essential to the life itself but again, "remunerative work" is not listed in Canon 603, for instance.) Perservering members is simply inapplicable. Even eremitical Lauras come into existence to SUPPORT already-professed solitary diocesan hermits --- and permission for these is not universally given. (Besides there are simply too few hermits in existence. Only a fraction of dioceses in the US have even a single diocesan hermit.) They are certainly not a requirement of canon 603. Some would argue they can be detrimental to the vocation outlined in c. 603 and that when they dissolve (which do more often than not) the remaining hermits must go back to living as solitary meeting all the requirements of c 603 as any other solitary hermit does. A horarium, if there is one, is part of the hermit's Rule or PLan of Life. Some hermits --- especially those professed soon after the publication of the Revised Code of Canon Law --- do not have one. They argue the freedom of the eremtiical life demands they be able to respond in whatever way they are called to by the Holy Spirit. Most hermit s I know leave such completely unstructured periods for a desert day or week devoted to a kind of retreat. Some hermits have an extremely basic one because illness does not permit a detailed one. Others have a more detailed one. I personally believe horaria are necessary, if only to establish the basic rhythm and balance of the day and week. The point is that there is no REQUIREMENT for one, canonical or otherwise. One must do what one works for one's own vocation --- and one learns what that is only over time living the vocation. As for formation, this is left up to the hermit herself, usually in conjunction with her spiritual director. Again, no single formation program works for every hermit. Meanwhile, no one is going to set up a physical novitiate. A diocese may want their diocesan hermits to have a grounding in sound theology and require a certificate from a Masters catechist program or something similar. They will ALWAYS require ongoing work with a competent spiritual director --- usually for at least several years prior to admission to temporary profession and for the remainder of her life as a hermit thereafter. Hermits are formed in solitude by God, and while I can personally list a number of things which I believe are essential for living the life effectively and responsively, specific things may not be true for any particular hermit. Dioceses will work with the hermit candidate for profession in evaluating her degree of formation and the strengths and weaknesses thereof. They will also tend to help her gain access to resources within the diocese which can assist the candidate in achieving the necessary well-roundedness of formation. Ongoing formation after perpetual profession is worked out by hermit, director and diocesan delegate with or without the direct input of the diocesan Bishop. Sometimes the hermit's pastor will participate in this as well as may a local graduate school in theology or programs in continuing education offered in the diocese for priests and parish ministers. Again, while formation is indispensible, a fixed formation program, much less a novitiate, is simply not helpful or "doable" except in the most basic or general sense; everything else has to be tailored to the individual. I am sorry you find there is nothing else to discuss. I think there are a lot of questions people would like (over time of course) for you to answer directly about your "emerging charisms" the use of eremitical life as a stopgap vocation, your own level of experience with private associations of the faithful and the move to become 1) public associations and 2) institutes of consecrated life, etc. The fact that you continue to refuse to do so is not helpful to your own projects or your hopes for these. If you are going to promote these projects, answering specific questions in public and transparent ways is important, don't you think? Sincerely, Sister Laurel, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 If those attracted to the charisms wish to take the c603 route, that is up to them. We are not using it as a stopgap vocation. We are taking the lay association route at the present time. We have one who is working with her bishop on the best route for her to take with her charism. I cannot comment on the internal workings of Cloister Outreach. I do not know to whom you are referring. If anyone has a problem, they are encouraged to contact me personally. That goes for anyone else. Those truly interested in what we're doing, please PM me. Thank you. This is absolutely the last post I will make on this subject, as per SD advice. Blessings, Gemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) I would prop this if we still had props. Thank you. Props are back! I have gone back and given some out. Thanks Sr Laurel for keeping us grounded in reality. I endorse everything you have said and have tried to get answers to some of the same questions myself but have been accused of persecution. But you post with experience and authority as a consecrated hermit and I know that your posts are always charitable and full of common sense and always relevant. A breath of fresh air - thank you. I won't be here much longer (entering Carmel in a couple of weeks) and I will be praying the young and/or inexperienced ones here ones aren't led astray by fantasy and misinformation so it is good to know that you will pop in when you can to help clarify things. Edited December 10, 2012 by nunsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 As founder, I am also known as the promoter and have the responsibility of doing just that--promoting. Our affiliate founders depend on me to promote them as well. Fr Gambari states that founders are promoters in his book. That being said, I have to run the gauntlet that he describes--people not understanding what we're doing. The canonist incident was just simply another cross the project had to bear. Fr Gambari also says just to start living the life, and the bishop will get wind of it eventually. Women are almost obsessive-compulsive about checking in with the bishop first. While he can describe how the charism could work in his diocese, there's also a chance that he won't know how to go about working with an emerging charism, and will cut them off. Our Fullerton Society brings the founders together and we establish groundwork guidelines that include the suggestion of sending a note to the bishop to let him know such is going on, but they are not sure whether or not they will be remaining in the diocese. This is due to the resources brought to the charism. Should something develop and they will not be remaining in the diocese, the Chancery will be informed. Some bishops--if they don't know what they're doing where emerging charisms are concerned--will sometimes try to interfere with the inspirations of the founders. Fr. Gambari says this is not a good thing. The founder's initial inspirations should be followed as closely as possible. The emerging charism is also encouraged to incorporate as a non-profit entity. This is to prevent the bishop from taking it over. Hermits do the same thing, only as solitaries. This is why you see a hermit with a website whose title is in the plural. They have a non-profit entity, but it has to have a plural name. I know of one eremite who is a public association, and she has a board of directors. She would eventually like to have a laura. I honestly don't know what else to say, other than the negative publicity has damaged our project, and only the grace of God is going to get us out of it. Canon 605 says to support emerging charisms. I have attached the statutes of a lay association which disbanded. These statutes clearly show the canonical references and the points to be covered.corpuschristianum.pdf "Mutuae Relationes" is another suggested reading: http://www.ewtn.com/...ia/ciclcbis.htm I also cannot help but feel prejudice against me because I am a married woman. I can now relate to the pioneer women jockeys who were told to "go home and do dishes." But, as stated before, the affiliate founders could care less what the world thinks of them--and public forums in particular. They have found their vocations and they will not be deprived of them. Blessings, Gemma Dear Gemma, Most hermits will not be able to become non profit because nothing they have, use, or own does not also profit themselves directly. 501(c)3 status requires not just that one be a canonical hermit but also that none of the income received from benefactors, etc be used EXCEPT to benefit others directly. For instance, if a hermit owns her hermitage and uses part of the property for retreatants, then she would need to keep a separate set of books documenting the use of that property as dedicated to retreatants and of the income from it as benefiting retreatants per se --- not the hermit or the hermitage generally. Another example: a hermit in Africa receives money and medicines to benefit those he ministers to and these are separate from the monies he supports himself with. Thus most c 603 hermits do NOT become 501(c)3 and canonists tend not to recommend it to them. In other words, it is allowed by law, but not something many can actually take advantage of. Sincerely, Sister Laurel, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Margaret Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Props are back! I have gone back and given some out. Thanks Sr Laurel for keeping us grounded in reality. I endorse everything you have said and have tried to get answers to some of the same questions myself but have been accused of persecution. But you post with experience and authority as a consecrated hermit and I know that your posts are always charitable and full of common sense and always relevant. A breath of fresh air - thank you. I won't be here much longer (entering Carmel in a couple of weeks) and I will be praying the young and/or inexperienced ones here ones aren't led astray by fantasy and misinformation so it is good to know that you will pop in when you can to help clarify things. Nunsense: Does this mean all paperwork is complete and you now have a date for your return? Sorry for the hijack, but didn't know where else I could ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Nunsense: Does this mean all paperwork is complete and you now have a date for your return? Sorry for the hijack, but didn't know where else I could ask. Yes. I will update in a few days. Don't want to hijack this thread. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasmi Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 High time that someone challenges some things posted on this website. Kudos Sr. Laurel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Thank you for the prayers and your opinion. I have already stated that we have the resources assembled. It is up to the founders themselves to take care of the rest. We offer support and encouragement, but they have to be the ones to live the life. I cannot do it for them. I honestly do not know what else to say. I work with these people and they go take care of their vocations. They could care less about what people on the public forums think of them. They have found their vocations and nobody is going to deprive them of it. "Stable source of habit parts" is what was given to me. My SD has said the habit is also based on the rule taken. So the habit is a part of what is necessary for recognition from the bishop. The bishop I spoke with asked me point blank 'Who is going to make your habit?" I didn't have an answer, despite trying to work on it at home. I have nothing else to say. Doubt if you wish, but do not hinder others. They have a right to associate with us if the Spirit leads them to do so. Blessings, Gemma Gemma, I think you would be helped if you did not take isolated sentences out of context. For instance, it seems very unlikely a Bishop would ask out of the blue, "Who is going to make your habit" without a preceding discussion (or very many of these) of whether there will be one and when it will be allowed or one on the impracticable nature of some of your ideas (habits, which, for instance use wood to shape the wimple, the fact that the documents of VII require habits to be simplified and made more hygienic, etc.). When the habit is such a central piece of your ideas (I can't generally call them "charisms" and when they are ordinarily anachronistic, a gentle way of calling attention to some of these latter problems might indeed be the question, "Who is going to make your habit?" The question may be a good way of saying, "I think you are out of touch with some things here." What does not follow are the conclusions that a pillar of the foundation needs to be a "stable source of habit parts" or that the Bishop is telling you this is the case! Or, take the comment by your SD about habits being linked to the Rule taken. You conclude from this that habit is part of what is necessary for recognition from the Bishop. Some Rules do not include habits, some adopt the contemporary dress of the time; ALL living congregations adapt habits according to the needs of the times. It is a huge (il)logical leap to conclude that the habit is necessary for recognition by the Bishop. (By the way, when I was seeking admission to eremitical profession under c 603, the question I was asked by the Bishop via a Vicar for Religious ("The Bishop wants to know. . .") was, ". . .WILL you wear a habit?" Clearly it indicates that a habit is not a pillar required before a Bishop will recognize one.) By the way, remember, in this context "recognition" is a peculiar canonical term that simply means he knows of the project; one can email a Bishop with a notification of a hitherto unknown project and this counts as being "recognized" by him --- so approval and recognition are not necessarily remotely the same. Of course you cannot live another's vocation for them, but assembling resources for discerners usually does NOT include creating a formation program, designing habits (always for "proposed charisms", "giving permission" for when a person may go to their Bishop to pursue public profession under canon 603 (no one needs your permission to go whenever they are ready), creating endlessly continuing initial formation stages (I honestly cannot remember all the stages you have now associated with what you call Vena Cava but they include aspirants, postulants, novas, novices and at least one other stage whose name I have forgotten.) The problem? NO ONE is being professed --- or, for that matter CAN be professed in these projects of yours). It begins to look like you simply add stages onto one end of the initial formation process or another as people stay with the project longer and discover it leads no where. I wonder why there is no regard for canon law (which spells out the stages of formation and what kinds of allowances are made for extending or abbreviating any stage). After all, there is a wisdom about the stages outlined in Canon Law and for the exceptions, extentions, etc it allows. All of this points to a serious question I have to wonder about in the case of any new foundation; namely, what makes a "founder" competent to direct, supervise, oversee, or any other term you like for the formation of religious men and women preparing for PUBLIC vows? Maybe more to the point, what kinds of things make a person incompetent to undertake such a highly skilled and responsible role in other peoples' lives? Should a founder be living the life? Should someone designing formation programs for hermits actually BE a hermit or have lived a substantial period of time AS a hermit under competent direction and supervision? Should they be at least normally gifted in the ways people who lead congregations are gifted? My answer to these latter questions would certainly be yes so I wonder how you answer them or whether you ever have. For the purposes of this thread it is important for people to know that ANYONE AT ALL by virtue of their Baptism may begin a private association of the faithful and NO approval is necessary unless there is some kind of "catechesis" involved or unless the association speaks of becoming an institute of consecrated life. Experimentation which includes habits, post-nomial initials and titles REQUIRES the Bishops approval because all of these are signs or symbols of PUBLIC rights and obligations. Bishops allow some groups to use these "on loan" against the day they become public associations of the faithful or actual institutes of consecrated life with PUBLIC vows, but permission is still required. The reasons are significant and have to do with credibility. For instance, if I see a person in a habit I have every right to believe they are publicly committed and their vocation is supervised by the Church in concrete and substantive ways. After all, these things are signs of an ecclesial VOCATION, not a private one. If they are doing this on an experimental ("on loan") basis I have the right to expect that a Bishop has given cautious and provisional permission for this and the members are clear with others that they are not (yet --- and may never be) publicly professed religious but lay persons discerning with the Church and moving towards public profession and canonical standing as religious. In other words, I have the right to believe that these persons have the capacity and right to function as religious and can be trusted in whatever way PUBLIC vows imply; I have the right to believe they are not frauds and not delusional or living out lives of pretence just as I have the right to question the Bishops or canonists involved should the project/congregation appear really flakey and dangerous to individual lives. Most private and even public associations of the faithful fail (think Hermit Intercessors of the Lamb here for an example of a very well-funded and devloped one that was suppressed). Some few succeed (think Knights of Columbus). Throwing one's lot in with such a group can be a VERY risky business and one needs to ask some really serious questions (and get direct answers!) before joining them. If someone comes claiming to be a "consecrated hermit," I am going to ask them some direct questions (the first of which will be when were you publicly professed and in whose hands). Similarly if someone comes making claims about being a foundress, it is certainly possible and entirely responsible to ask them straightforward questions without it being considered bullying. Sincerely, Sister Laurel, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By His Grace Alone Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 [mod]Personal attack --franciscanheart[/mod] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feankie Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sr. Laurel...a big thank you for putting into words the thoughts that have been bouncing around in my brain viz Gemma's posts. You are succinct, pull no punches, and say IMHO the truth in love. Thanks for your continued input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 [mod] edit personal attack-- hsm[/mod] Whatever the reasons, one has to be aware that, as another person wrote earlier, this person's stories do not hang together and direct questions are never answered in a straightforward way cf recent Q and A's on the cloisterite family thread). It is truly unfortunate that when someone says, "I send in annual reports to HIs Excellency" one must ask the further questions to be sure of what the person is really saying: "Did he request you do that or have you done (or are you doing) it on your own initiative?" "Do you ever meet face to face with the Bishop or a delegate of his about these reports or about any of your projects?" or "Has he actually approved any of these projects?" and finally, "Are you speaking of the Bishop of Charlotte or some other unnamed Bishop when you make such claims?" It is even more unfortunate that when such questions are asked they still get no direct answers but instead refuge is taken in the (unlikely) SD dodge: "I can't say anymore on the advice of my SD!" The bottom line is simple: if one wants to "promote vocations" publicly then one has to be able and willing to answer the significant questions attached to such a significant undertaking. Were this poster (or someone else from Cloisters Outreach ---especially someone with ecclesiatical credentials real expertise in religious life) to do this the poster might find her projects would be more successful. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antigonos Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I find Sr. Laurel's comments to be both interesting and full of common sense. I've sometimes wondered about how new communities are founded myself. When I first discovered the website of the Adoratrices du Cœur Royal de Jésus-Christ Souverain Prêtre I noticed that the three women establishing it were not apparently nuns or sisters yet -- but two of them were invested immediately with the black veil indicative of at least temporary vows. It was unclear whether these women had undergone formation with another order or not. That an order would make a new foundation, or that an already professed nun would "split off" as it were, as Mother Teresa did, and found a new community with a different charism, etc. I can understand. But for a lay person, no matter how devout, to suddenly decide to organize a new religious community without first having been part of another, seems a risky business to me. [It also seems a bit hubristic to assume that no existing community would suit; and that, by founding a new one, the founder can "jump the queue", so to speak, becoming a Superior without ever having gone through the preliminary stages of formation herself. Just my 2 cents.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister_Laurel Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I find Sr. Laurel's comments to be both interesting and full of common sense. I've sometimes wondered about how new communities are founded myself. When I first discovered the website of the Adoratrices du Cœur Royal de Jésus-Christ Souverain Prêtre I noticed that the three women establishing it were not apparently nuns or sisters yet -- but two of them were invested immediately with the black veil indicative of at least temporary vows. It was unclear whether these women had undergone formation with another order or not. That an order would make a new foundation, or that an already professed nun would "split off" as it were, as Mother Teresa did, and found a new community with a different charism, etc. I can understand. But for a lay person, no matter how devout, to suddenly decide to organize a new religious community without first having been part of another, seems a risky business to me. [It also seems a bit hubristic to assume that no existing community would suit; and that, by founding a new one, the founder can "jump the queue", so to speak, becoming a Superior without ever having gone through the preliminary stages of formation herself. Just my 2 cents.] Dear Antigonos, it does happen that lay persons found communities and it can be very successful but that is rarely the case today. When they do the road to formal approval and erection as an institute of consecrated life takes time and perseverence and mainly such projects end in dissolution or suppression. Ordinarily successful founders have amazing vision, courage, piety, and other gifts and the charism of the congregation is truly a gift of the Holy Spirit meant specifically to benefit the contemporary Church and world in some significant way. Too often the term "charism" has been tossed around here for any idea that comes off the top of someone's head but that is a trivialization of the term. If the vision of a founder grows within her from the interplay of her appreciation of the needs of the world and the impulses and gifts of the Holy Spirit a genuine charism may result. But you can bet that this founder will give her life to live out this gift and do everything possible to be sure the foundation is successful. In other words she will be living this charism herself and the development of the life will continue to be in response to the Holy Spirit and the needs of the Church and World being ministered to as she comes to know these in living it out. Occasionally religious and priests will found communities at some remove and guide them along as well. This is the way we get women's branches of various congregations (or vice versa) for instance. Think of the story of Saints Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de Chantal and the Visitation Sisters, for instance. But of course here you had a Bishop and spiritual director (not to mention a Saint known for his wonderful spirituality) assisting at every point. Further, the spirituality was one that was desperately needed because it, like Benedictinism, found God in the ordinariness of life and sought holiness in this way. No one in this project was concerned with playing dressup or buying into strange forms of asceticism, etc. They were in profound touch with the needs of those who would join the Order (those who, for instance, other orders rejected because of ill-health or age) and those they would minister to as well. They were concerned with being there FOR others, not with playing at being a religious, etc. There have been MANY charisms in the history of religious life and the majority have died out because the times changed and this particular gift and the mission that stems from it was no longer needed. (For instance, we no longer need congregations ministering to freed slaves --- though many congregations today have taken on the fight against human trafficking.) I was thinking about the idea of being driven to renew old charisms which have indeed died out and the Scripture that occurred to me was "let the dead bury their dead". I really hadn't reflected much on this aspect of Cloisters Outreach and what bothered me about it but at the heart of it all stands the not only the trivialization of charism but the sense that one cannot simply dig up old charisms and revive them at will. I suppose there is sometimes a fine line between living in the present moment and responding to its needs with something from the tradition and simply being nostalgic for or enamored by old dead things but with CO I really do think the emphasis is on the latter FAR more than it is on the former. Too often the ideas grasped at seem to me to be more reflective of a desire to catch and hold someone's interest in a novel way than to meet real needs and simply live one's life in response to the Holy Spirit. The other Scriptures that come to mind include Jesus' parable "which of you would begin building without calculating the cost (etc)?" and the saying about the tower built on sand. Simply because something CAN be done (or started) does not mean is SHOULD be begun, and even if it should be begun, that does not mean we ourselves are the ones to do it. Religious Foundations cannot be built on whims or pretence. They cannot represent the active equivalent of navel gazing or narcissism (playing dressup in habits or becoming caught up in the whole issue of strange garb for every newly- imagined stage or occasion, styling oneself as a founder, etc). They cannot be rooted in IDEAS of spirituality (a little Dominicanism, some Salesian stuff, a pinch of Benedictine hospitality, and a whiff of Carthusian solitude). They must be built on the wholeness of a founder's own lived spirituality which is distilled into something new in the conversation which occurs between the Holy Spirit and the needs of the Church and World in this founder's heart and life. If this can be identified as Franciscan or Benedictine or Camaldolese or Carthusian or whatever, then fine. But it is NOT a random amalgamation of ideas of spirituality cut and pasted to fit a preconceived notion. And here is where the need for formation comes in. A founder MUST be a person of deep prayer as well as vision. She must understand people and herself especially. She must have been formed in a way which allows her to be in touch with and compassionate towards the yearnings of those she will minister to. Formation as a religious can certainly be helpful (and may be essential; I would personally hope for it), but formation as a person of faith, prayer, love and integrity in Christ is still far more essential. Sincerely, Sister Laurel M O'Neal, Er Dio Stillsong Hermitage Diocese of Oakland http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm sure everything that needs to be said (and much that doesn't) has been said. I'm closing this. Please practice charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.37254b1a80def8244addb434a8725cb1.thumb.jpg.2464927ddec53e331b628eda7b3c30d1.jpg)
Recommended Posts