Admissions Process For Women's Orders?

[Sponsa-Christi]

Emma,

 

I agree with you that there might be something to those career-placement type tests (and I think it's really interesting about your friend and the military!) But, I'm wondering if the people who make those tests really have a good understanding of what Catholic religious life is all about. 

 

Besides the fact that a religious vocation is a calling from God, and not a career, and that God can call whomever He chooses...I think a lot of times these tests sort of categorize "religion/clergy" alongside things like counseling or social work. If you're looking at the typical experience of a parish priest, this categorization might sort of work in some respects. But women's religious life wouldn't necessarily fit this mold, since religious life encompasses a very wide variety of ways of living and apostolic works.

 

Maybe you might look at your career placement test as giving you some clues about what kind of community to look into (e.g., cloistered Carmelites vs. Salesian Sisters vs. Maryknoll Missionaries), as opposed to telling you whether or not you should discern a religious vocation in general. 

 

[AnneLine]

I only have a few minutes to post this, and I will be off internet for a few days after this... but I don't want to miss a chance to get in a few thoughts.. .and maybe someone can remind me to come back to this when I have a few more hours in my week.

 

And this is probably going to be too long.....

 

I feel like I need to say a few things about the Strong and similar inventories.  I think I'm pretty qualified to talk about these because I am a counselor who specializes in career work (as well as bereavement) AND a Secular Order vocations/formation director.  

 

Emma, I think you raise several valid points, but I also think that you and your friend may not have totally understood what the purpose of those assessments is nor what they purport to tell you!   I think they DO have their place as PART of any career decision making, and for some people they also can be a PART of exploring the call that they have to serve God, whether as a religious or as a secular, but they are one of many TOOLS that a career counselor or community might use.

 

Strong Interest Inventory (SII) and several other instruments use insights that came from a guy named John Holland.  Nearly a hundred years ago, he realized that there seemed to be a connection between people who really liked their jobs and people who were really GOOD at their jobs.   (It's also possible to not like your job and be really good at it, or to really WANT to be able to do something and not be very good at it at all!) ;)   But he got interested in WHY some people seem to 'fit' particular jobs.   And what he realized is that people and jobs can be explored by looking at several different things:

 

R.....Realistic - focused on physical movement, hands-on work, often using tools and machinery, or working in agriculture, etc.
I.......Investigative - focused on exploration, questioning, inquiry - desire to understand the how and what of things, problem solving

A.....Artistic - creative, unconventional, often including music, art, like variety

S.....Social (people-helping) - focused on helping others, including teaching, social services

E.....Enterprising (people-influencing) - focused on trying to convince or persuade others of something -sales, politics, business

C....Conventional - focused on doing the same things over and over, routine, consistency, traditional values

 

It's too complicated to go into in this thread but the bottom line is that types of work and work environments and people can all be evaluated (the people by using one of those inventories, or just looking at their own preferences) to see which of those things, and in what order, people would prefer to work.  The work itself can also be broken down that way, as can the environment in which work is performed.  So, for example, someone who really likes to move around a lot, likes to help people and enjoys doing the same thing over and over might really enjoy work in something like paramedic work.   It includes parts of all of those areas.  That same person would probably be miserable if you put the person behind the desk in an office, even if they realized the were helping people and it was health related.  It is just a different set of preferences.

 

When someone isn't sure what they want to do or why they aren't happy in a particular kind of work, it can be helpful to use these and similar inventories.   BUT, the results have to be used in the right way!   If you don't understand what the results mean you can get really wrong information!   It can be startling to people who WANT to be a religious to find that 'religion and spirituality' might appear to come in low, or they DON'T want to be in the military and the military one comes up high.   The first response is to say, oh no!  Now I can't do/be what I want to be!!!!!   But those two scales have NOTHING to say about whether you would be a good religious or that you should go into the military!!!!   NO CAREER INVENTORY WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE SUPOSED TO DO OR BE.  They are only a tool, and you use the information along WITH other things, and hopefully, with someone who can help you tease out what might be useful in them for YOU.  It's kind of like looking at an X-ray.  I look at it and I sort of understand what I am seeing... but someone who is trained can understand MORE and know what to do with it.

 

The people who designed the Strong gave that test to people who DID choose a military career or 'religious work' - those people answered the test however they answered it.  All your initial scores tell me is that YOU took the test and answered a little differently..... or similarly.   It is the start of a conversation about why... not an answer.  

 

Part of the reason is that very often, the people who were working in 'religion' aren't doing what you want to be doing.  They might have been a priest, minister or rabbi.  Almost certainly they were NOT a religious sister... and even less likely they were a cloistered nun, for example.   There are a million careers in the military... any one of which might or might not be right for you.  What usually shows up for people who score high on 'military' is that they like the orderliness and structure of the military hierarchy... and I could see how that could also match up with, say, someone who wanted a traditional religious life.  BECAUSE both of those are 'C" conventional careers (see that word 'convent' in there -- convents are rationally places where things are done every day exactly the same over and over with a great regularity of lifestyle.  THAT is what is showing up.)

 

Long before I became a career counselor, I wanted to be a cloistered nun.  I REALLY wanted to be a cloistered nun.   A friend of mine who was working as a career counselor asked if I would be willing to take a bunch of these tests, because she was curious to know what my scores would look like.  I said sure, why not.  And I remember her sitting me down and saying that she was kind of surprised by my scores, because they were NOT what she would have expected from someone who would be happy as a cloistered nun.  She told me that she would have thought I would have scored high on things like enjoying housework, or staying in one place all the time, or doing repetitive work (in other words, a CONVENTIONAL lifestyle).  Instead, I was scoring much higher on things like serving others, enjoying investigative work, and in doing artistic work.   You know what... she was right.   The jobs I have enjoyed most through the years have indeed been all about those things.. .and I hate house work.   BUT when I do housework, it helps me to know that I can serve others, create beauty and that very ordinariness and repetitiveness of housework gives me the time to pray in silence, which is what my soul craves.  If she had not helped me to understand that, I might have really missed some valuable prayer time over the years.....

 

Usually the Strong is also given together with other assessments and together they help people understand their personality better, and understand why they might enjoy one kind of lifestyle or work over another kind.  And as a Catholic, they give me clues on where I might be happiest living out my faith, and how to use the gifts and skills God has given me.

 

Now I have to stop, and I fear I may have made a huge babbling jumble of this!   Feel free to ask further questions, but remember, I'll not have a lot of ability to respond for next few days....

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just a few remarks to add to the good responses so far.

 

Most communities WILL ask for the Baptismal and Confirmation certificates. This is a requirement of Canon Law, I believe. It's proof that you are actually a Catholic.... No "imposters" allowed, like Whoopi Goldberg. :hehe2:

 

Most in USA ask for psych and physical evaluations. Our communities has fluctuated on its opinion about the psych exam. We found someone 2 hours away and have the candidate go during her postulancy. Generally, you just pick up problems simply living together. But that added advantage of a professional is to explain the issue, and be available if the candidate needs to talk to someone in the future.

 

We do not require educational transcripts, because (as someone mentioned) we don't go on for further study. However, active communities might. We also do not require FBI, child-abuse, essays, etc. But, again, these would be important for active communities where a person would be interacting with the public in ministry.

 

Personal references are always asked, but from my perspective they really aren't very helpful.

 

Blessings,

Sr. Mary Jeremiah, OP

I'm kind of interested about the part about Baptismal and Confirmation certificates...

 

I was baptized and confirmed (Chrismated) in the Eastern Orthodox Church when I was in my early teens. When I became Catholic in my 20s, I couldn't get the certificate from the parish. (I was still received into the Catholic Church though, and I wasn't conditionally baptized. However I'm quite sure I was baptized because the Orthodox do the Sacraments validly and there's no controversy at all about whether or not I was baptized - I remember it and my family was there. I did get signatures of witnesses showing that I was indeed baptized).

 

However, the only certificate I have is of me coming into the Catholic Church - it says there that I received the Sacraments of initiation... but I don't have a Baptism or Confirmation certificate.

 

Would this be enough for a religious community if I were to enter?

[MarysLittleFlower]

I have done psych evals twice- once for a cloistered community and once for an active community. I found the first to be rather laughable as the religious sister who did the evaluation had studied in Rome and had very narrow ideas that were not up to date with recent psychological research knowledge.  The second time was fine and I gained a few insights from it that was helpful for self-knowledge.

 

What seems to me to be only just, though i realize it would never happen, would be that the candidate/postulant be given a psych evaluation of the cloistered community they are entering, since they get one of the candidate.  Cloistered communities can be weird in their psychologies, Most older nuns never had to have psychological evaluation and may well have been subjected to punitive and humiliating formation practices that they now mimic in interacting with new members. Those nuns who entered right out of high school and were formed with a "whatever rev. mother says, goes" notion of obedience may well be affronted or threatened by professional women who enter formation with an adult identity and competence in making decisions.  Here is a simple example: I was stunned to be told that I could "change in to a clean blouse tomorrow" by the novice mistress when I was a new postulant.  I was an experienced professional nurse in my mid-twenties before entering, so it never even occurred to me that I would be told when to change to a clean blouse...    Fortunately I was so stunned that I just mumbled "thank you Sister" rather than blurting out that I had put on a clean blouse that morning and was quite used to dressing myself.  I did not last long there before I decided to leave and return to the late 20th century!

 

I don't want to get into a debate but maybe I see things a bit differently... My degree was in Psychology. I remember we learned all kinds of things - some more objective, some less so. We learned many theories that are constantly being revised. Regarding the Sister you mentioned in your first paragraph - I don't know what the ideas were that were discussed, but psychological research - no matter how recent - is not infallible and is in a constant state of change anyways. I'm not saying there's no value at all in psychological evaluations, I mean if done correctly and using the right criteria - I'm just saying that just because someone disagrees with modern psychological theories does not make them "narrow". There are areas of secular psychology that don't even fit a Catholic understanding well, - it's better to see a Catholic psychologist for that reason, than a non Catholic one.

 

I am not one to believe that our faith, or religious life, should be changed according to the ever-changing popular psychological theories of today. For example, today people - especially in pop psychology - always talk about "self esteem" etc. Religious life is not based on 'self esteem'. If something is humiliating, it's to get rid of pride. This is how it's been for centuries and religious life has flourished and Saints came out of religious orders. I'm not saying I support some sort of extreme - I just don't think that the norm in religious life is extreme. The idea of following obedience and doing what the Mother Superior says - isn't that just standard? Sure it doesn't fit with the modern ideas of "self expression" "self esteem" or asserting individual authority - but religious life doesn't exist for these purposes, - quite the opposite, it exists for one's growth in holiness by denying the self and denying one's self will through poverty, chastity, and obedience, and choosing God's will over one's own. One part of this is following obedience in the monastery, even if a particular thing might not make sense. We find this in the lives of the Saints. I think if "professional women" who feel used to making their own decisions enter a religious community, that doesn't mean that religious life should be changed to match what they're used to. Because one of the purposes of religious life IS to mortify self will and one aspect of this could be the humbling things that happen. I don't mean done cruelly. I mean ones that are just part of the life - or are right in that situation. If something humiliating happens, it's for our sanctification to accept it as something that would humble us. It doesn't matter too much who we were "in the world" in terms of  - if we were professional women, then we shouldn't be told what to do.. I don't think that's the case. Religious life is leaving the world. Everything done for obedience can be sanctified... these are not "backwards ideas". I seem to recall that Jesus told a Saint that everything done in obedience would be blessed, even little things, but not things done in self will - because this is how religious life is.

 

I don't think that our century is somehow superior to others.

 

Maybe people would disagree with my post, but I don't think it's compatible with religious life to assert one's independence, decision making ability, etc.

 

Because an idea is newer does not make it better - it's not about mere progressing, but what we are progressing to. I think we should ask "what is true?" not what is more progressive, more intellectual, etc. Not saying you're doing that, I have no way of knowing that, but I know such ideas are popular today.

Edited September 30, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

You make some really good points there Graciela.

 

Another phenomenon that I have observed is that those in formation will manage to 'hold it together' until they get to Solemn Profession, at which time they can't be sent away, and that is when they start to exhibit symptoms of psychological distress. The number of professed Carmelites that I have seen who either exhibit behavioral or psychological problems, or who suddenly have to start seeing therapists after making final vows is amazing. I call it the 'black veil syndrome'. :)

 

In small communities this obviously has an effect on everyone. I don't think this means that a psych eval would have changed anything. I think it means that for many of the older cloistered communities, their ideas of formation are so outdated as to contribute to psychological problems that are unconsciously being held in check until the person feels safe enough (after Solemn Profession) to express them. Combine this syndrome with the mental state of those older nuns who 'have been subjected to punitive and humiliating formation practices' and you end up with a very dysfunctional community. So even if a person passes their psych eval to get into the community, whether or not they maintain that psychological health depends a lot on the formation process and on the psychological health of the community itself.

 

I think that one of the key problems in today's convents is the conflict between the pre-Vatican 2 concept of total obedience that precluded a woman from expressing any independent thought or discretion and today's entrants, who have been raised in a society where women are independent and often coming from responsible and professional occupations. The Jesuits once said 'give me a boy before he's 5 and he's mine for life'. This is basically why convents in the past have always wanted young women - those who have not had life experience and who have been dependent on their parents to make decisions for them. After Vatican 2, obedience took on a whole new meaning and understanding, but a lot of the cloistered communities did not take this on board, keeping their old and rigid view of the vow. There is still the idea in some communities that humiliation can lead to humility, where in fact, it often leads to suppressed resentment, bitterness and secretiveness. Just because a person can say 'Yes Sister' does not mean that their mind and heart have also said this. We are told that if we want to be saints, we have to just endure it when someone treats us badly or accuses us of something we did not do. This will make us humble. My response, from being a psych nurse of 20 plus years is  'bullfeathers'. Psychological abuse is psychological abuse - in a convent or outside. A convent should be a place of love and support for the 'friends of Jesus', our Sisters, not a place where we have to learn how to endure years of psychological and verbal abuse in one form or another before we are 'safe' with the black veil. Sure, the convent is the front line of a spiritual battle, but treating each other badly looks more like giving comfort and aid to the enemy, Satan, rather than supporting our troops.

 

Going back to the application process: There have always been exceptions to the 'young and untried' applicant of course. St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross is one example of a more mature and experienced pre Vat 2 woman who was able to navigate her way through the  rigid formation process and still keep her independent mind and spirit intact but she was an exceptional woman as well as a saint. On the whole, the women in the past came from a society where the rigid formation process in cloistered communities was not much different than the society in which they lived -so the internal conflict was not as great - difficult yes, but not really unexpected.

 

But there are still many women in cloistered convents today who went through pre Vat 2 formation and were damaged. They express this through their behavior and attitudes, and their inability to accept change. Many of these damaged women are now in positions of authority, and what was good enough for them is good enough for today's woman, even if there is evidence to the contrary. So until those in in authority now either change their attitude (not likely but not impossible either) or leave their office for a younger woman, it will take time before all the unhealthy formation practices change completely. The real danger to the communities is that before that happens, they will 'die out' from lack of vocations that persevere. It isn't that cloistered communities can't get vocations - it's that they can't keep them.

 

If this happened in the corporate world (new employees who don't stay) - the company would have to look long and hard at why they couldn't keep people by examining their workplace practices. This doesn't happen in a lot of the older cloistered communities where they tend to blame the postulant or Novice who is usually told that she either doesn't have a vocation or that she isn't humble enough or some other reason for her leaving or being asked to leave.

 

Visitations of cloistered communities happen and recommendations are made, but the old attitudes and practices are protected as if they are the charism of the community, rather than just the means to live out that charism. At one community where I lived, the Visitation pointed out that if one was going to use the old triangle method of viewing hierarchy, with point up position of the Prioress at the top and the community at the bottom, then it should have changed after Vat 2 to reflect the new attitude that the triangle was standing on its point, with the community being at the top and the Prioress being at the bottom, to serve the community. In fact, the whole triangle view is outdated and something more inclusive like a circle should be used. Yes, the Prioress is Christ in the community, but the Christ who came to serve, washing the feet of His disciples as an example of how we should use authority given to us by God.

 

I know this is a bit of a rant, and probably TLDR, but it's ironic that communities spend so much time and money on the selection process with all their psych evals, and yet they spend so little time or money on evaluating how to protect the psychological health of those applicants after they enter.

 

And because I hate to finish on a negative note, I will add that there are new and flourishing communities - and even some older communities that have made the leap into this century and found the balance between obedience and individuality in their communities. If some of the communities that are dying out would turn and look to these successful communities and ask for help in developing healthy formation practices, they would be doing themselves a big favor. To start though, maybe they should give a psych eval to everyone in their community to see if anyone there would pass!   Or maybe give psych evals to anyone who wants to be a superior -- that might give some really interesting results! :P

 

Sorry for straying from the OP a little. Got carried away. :)

 

Nunsense, I'm sure that you know more about religious life than I do, but some things in your post I had a question about. What do you mean about "new" idea of obedience? I think that obedience is obedience... like I said in my other post above, I wouldn't say religious life is a place to assert one's independent thought? I mean it exists to grow in holiness, and mortifying one's self will and pride is an aspect of this. I've read about the Saints and how they responded to humiliations, and how this helped them. I'm not talking about humiliating someone in a cruel heartless way and never showing any kindness - I mean if this happens, I think that the effect on us would maybe depend on how we deal with it - and whether we take it as a humiliation and link any suffering to Jesus' suffering, or if we deal with it the usual way in the world of trying to keep our "self esteem" afloat. Didn't the Saints forget themselves, and try to love? I don't know maybe my perspective is different... I know some people would say what I'm taking about is "old ideas" etc but to me it doesn't really matter if something is old or new, what matters is simply - what is true. :) that's what I'm trying to seek. Just because something is older than today's ideas and unpopular today, I wouldn't reject it for that reason. But regarding humiliations that are just part of the life - rather than a humiliating action - for example, the custom of kissing the floor when having made a mistake - maybe people would say that would harm one's "self esteem" but in actuality it's oriented to holiness. Same with obedience... I read that  in religious life everything done in obedience, would be pleasing to God, and self willed decisions would not be. I think if we read some of the things Jesus told St Faustina, Sr Josefa Menendez, or other Saints - this could help form our view better than any modern theories. :) I'm not saying that my understanding is definitely right and trying to support it with quotes from revelations, - I'm suggesting maybe for others who are interested to look up the writings together and learn from them. :) In any case, I plan to do that.

 

I wanted to respond to this paragraph in particular from your post...

 

"Just because a person can say 'Yes Sister' does not mean that their mind and heart have also said this. We are told that if we want to be saints, we have to just endure it when someone treats us badly or accuses us of something we did not do. This will make us humble. My response, from being a psych nurse of 20 plus years is  'bullfeathers'. Psychological abuse is psychological abuse - in a convent or outside. A convent should be a place of love and support for the 'friends of Jesus', our Sisters, not a place where we have to learn how to endure years of psychological and verbal abuse in one form or another before we are 'safe' with the black veil."

 

If saying "Yes Sister" but not truly meaning it, might result in bitterness down the road - why cut out the idea of obedience instead of promoting the idea of saying "yes" WITH the heart and mind? I mean when we read about the Saints, it seems that - even if they struggled at times, at first - eventually they were able to, and it helped them, and didn't make them bitter. Should we get rid of something just because not everyone is getting it? But it's meant to be hard and no one maybe gets it at first... it doesn't mean it's not worth trying? The example of the Saints does show that humility involves enduring suffering even at the hands of others - and this is what Our Lord did. Don't we follow His example?  

 

In addition, I don't think that this needs to be psychological abuse. I think that's something else. Niether am I talking about asking someone to do something sinful. I just mean regular things that would happen, that are customs in the convent, or being asked to do something that is maybe kind of "pointless" or unpleasant or not what one would choose first. For example, if I really like sewing, but am asked to clean the dishes. If the Mother Superior asked me each time what I would rather be doing, - then everything I do would just be my own will, - how would I ever escape my attachment to my will? Then there are humiliating things like kissing the floor - I don't think that's psychological abuse either. I think psychological abuse is something else.

 

I read about St Bernadette and how she was really opposed in the convent, and how she suffered from this - yet her response was one that helped her to grow in holiness. I'm NOT supporting being harsh to other Sisters. I'm also not supporting being against someone who is of God, like St Bernadette. I'm just saying that St Bernadette dealt with it correctly, instead of getting bitter. We might say, she was a Saint, and we are not, - but these things can help us become Saints... can they not? Again I'm not saying that being harsh is good, or siding with the Sister who was against St Bernadette - I want to support everyone that's of God. But it doesn't need to make us bitter, if we use it to bring us closer to Our Lord.

 

The things I said that "should" happen in a convent - I didn't mean anything harsh. I meant like the examples I brought up before - little acts of mortifying one's self will. I don't think that's abuse, even if as a "professional woman" I'd find it difficult.

 

St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross had a strong mind and was intelligent. However, she was also obedient and sought humility. She wrote her works in obedience and with permission.

 

To be honest I'm struggling with the idea that everything preVII was bad. This view seems to be expressed on this forum at times, but I don't understand it. I'm not referring to particular ideas here, just in general. I'm sure that no one here believes that the Church started with VII. :) why can't we look at BOTH ideas, that - the Superiors are at the top because they represent Christ, and also that they should be humble? I don't think these ideas are contradictory.. :)

 

Sorry if this is kind of a rant and maybe I'm misunderstanding something and what you and the others are saying. But personally I support the view of obedience in everything at the convent, and though I don't support excessive harshness or mistakes on the part of the Superiors of other Sisters, (like the mistakes themselves), I think IF they happen, we could use them to lead us closer to holiness and humility, instead of letting ourselves become bitter. We are faced with these decisions in the world too :) it's like suffering.. it's not good in itself, but if it happens, it's up to us if it takes us to Heaven or to hell. (paraphrasing St Alphonsus Liguori).

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just to clarify what I meant in case it's unclear...

 

I don't think we should be harsh and unjust. If someone is, we can deal with it in a helpful way. This goes not just for the convent. Anything can be used for our sanctification. But regarding things that happen at convents in order to mortify self will, rather than harshness, - I think those are good. (even a response to harshness can mortify self will, but that's the response, not the intent of the action, - so I'm talking about the action itself here).

Edited September 30, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Sister Marie]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

I'm glad you expressed your view even if I don't agree with you entirely.  I wanted to ask though where you get the idea that so many around here are saying that pre-vatican II is bad?  I haven't seen that sentiment at all on this phorum and maybe its because of my perspective from further left than most of the people here.  

 

I wanted to address what you said about obedience from the past and obedience now.  I don't think the issue is with obedience changing but with the circumstances in which God is calling us to become saints.  Our world needs 2013 saints - not 1800s saints.  (Not that we shouldn't be trying to emulate saints from the past or that they aren't our dear brother and sister intercessors!)  I don't believe that the path to holiness in religious life was solidified and codified at any point in time - even in our present time but that becoming a saint means responding with holiness to the circumstances of our lives now, not fitting our modern lives into a time period which was filled with different needs, different circumstances, and different struggles and graces. 

 

Basically the virtue doesn't change but the way its lived does.  In fifty years it will change again.  Nothing of the substance is lost but the physical manifestation grows and evolves.  There is no new obedience.  Obedience has always been and will always be obedience but it looks different in our modern world than it did in a world like Bernadette's where the poor and women were mostly uneducated, had no options other than marriage or religious life.

 

Can I give an example?  There is a sister in an active community in the 1940s.  She doesn't want to teach first grade but she is assigned to a first grade classroom.  She doesn't know what to do with the little children and they are out of control but out of obedience she went.  It isn't ideal but the sisters who are her grade partners are helping her and she finds that even though small children are not her preference she makes it through with the help and guidance of her sisters.  Now there is an active sister in a teaching community in the 1980's.  She is assigned to first grade but she hasn't studied elementary education.  She has a degree to teach high school biology.  She isn't certified and shes going to a school where she will be the only teaching sister (This is VERY common now in schools that congregations operate).  Out of obedience, she approaches her superior and shares her concerns.  Her superior prays about it with the sister and they come to the discernment that it would not be just for the children or for the sister for her to be put in a position where she could potentially derail their education (when they are supposed to learn to read!)  They also agree that it isn't fair for parents to be paying for their childrens education from someone with no training or certification or help from other sisters.  

 

In the first example, obedience is lived by the sister in the circumstances of her time.  There was no important certification needed to teach and she was surrounded by other sisters who could help her to learn.  She went, she learned, it wasn't great but she made it through.

 

In the second example, obedience is lived by the sister in the circumstances of her time.  She was unqualified professionally, she had no one to help her and she knew that it was unjust for her to accept the assignment without raising her concerns.  The superior and she prayed about it and another decision was made which sister accepted.

 

Neither sister was trying to do HER will.  Each sister was trying to do God's will in the time and circumstances that surround them.  It's no new obedience - its the same obedience in different circumstances.  

[Nunsuch]

Thank you, Sister Marie.  And let me just add one more little "p.s." to what you have said.  If you read the vows of obedience in most communities, the vow is not to any human being, but to God.  That is why prayer and discernment is so important. Our understanding of the vows has evolved, which does not mean that those in the past were wrong, but that they had a different context. Today, The formation in theology, as well as in professions, is far more sophisticated and advanced than it was even 50 years ago.  It would be a violation of the vow of poverty to waste that training by assuming that only one person (the superior) in a community had the wisdom that is at the foundation of obedience.

 

I was with a sister this weekend who has been the major superior of her community for a little over a year. She is a woman with a doctorate, and someone who is wise as well as educated. But she says that one thing she has learned most forceably in the past year is what she does NOT know.  She prays more than ever, and consults more widely than she ever did. She has a council she trusts, but even beyond that, there are many sisters who have insight and wisdom, as well as knowledge in particular areas, that are greater than hers.  She ALSO is obedient--to God, to the collective wisdom of the community, and so on.  

 

In short, obedience is a very complicated vow (which is why it is both taken with great seriousness AND understood by most as the most difficult of the vows).  It is not simply a matter of issuing or following orders.

[Sister Marie]

Absolutely Nunsuch!  Thanks for adding that our obedience is to God through our superiors.  I think that is part of the reason some abuses occur.  Sisters or communities become fixated on the idea that perfect obedience is in doing what one is told by the superior that they lose sight of the unique person for whom God has a loving plan in front of them.  Sisters are human too and these ideas lend themselves more to the power that can be destructive.

 

Another point I wanted to make is that while it seems that acceptance and "Yes, sister" are really the virtuous stances in obedience, I personally see them as the easier stances.  It is incredibly difficult to go to a superior and share how God has been speaking to your heart especially when it is in opposition to an obedience issued or when it precedes some decision.  It requires a great amount of vulnerability, honesty, willingness to be wrong, willingness to be right but still be given an unsatisfactory decision, willingness to accept that decision.  Giving voice to God's word in your heart is much more difficult than saying "Yes, Sister."  It also requires a lot more from the individual sister to be responsible, in obedience, for the future of the community by holding God's word in her heart and discerning with the rest of her sisters.  

 

Again though, its about living obedience in our modern world - not in a world from long ago.  

[NotreDame]

Great point Sister Marie... Ignatian obedience is often considered the most strict form of religious obedience, but many misinterpret the great Saint on the subject to their own detriment:

 

http://underachindolea.blogspot.com/2009/02/jesuit-obedience-and-legionaries-of.html

[AccountDeleted]

Great point Sister Marie... Ignatian obedience is often considered the most strict form of religious obedience, but many misinterpret the great Saint on the subject to their own detriment:

 

http://underachindolea.blogspot.com/2009/02/jesuit-obedience-and-legionaries-of.html

 

 

Excellent article ND - thanks so much.

 

I especially like these paragraphs...

 

'But that aside, let's remember not to cut off bits and pieces of a spirituality that we like. The "good parts" by themselves are only parts, not the whole.'

 

I haven't time to respond more fully to your comments on my post MLF but Sr Marie has put things so beautifully and answered so completely that maybe I don't really need to add anything. Let me pray about it. :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

I'm glad you expressed your view even if I don't agree with you entirely.  I wanted to ask though where you get the idea that so many around here are saying that pre-vatican II is bad?  I haven't seen that sentiment at all on this phorum and maybe its because of my perspective from further left than most of the people here.  

 

I wanted to address what you said about obedience from the past and obedience now.  I don't think the issue is with obedience changing but with the circumstances in which God is calling us to become saints.  Our world needs 2013 saints - not 1800s saints.  (Not that we shouldn't be trying to emulate saints from the past or that they aren't our dear brother and sister intercessors!)  I don't believe that the path to holiness in religious life was solidified and codified at any point in time - even in our present time but that becoming a saint means responding with holiness to the circumstances of our lives now, not fitting our modern lives into a time period which was filled with different needs, different circumstances, and different struggles and graces. 

 

Basically the virtue doesn't change but the way its lived does.  In fifty years it will change again.  Nothing of the substance is lost but the physical manifestation grows and evolves.  There is no new obedience.  Obedience has always been and will always be obedience but it looks different in our modern world than it did in a world like Bernadette's where the poor and women were mostly uneducated, had no options other than marriage or religious life.

 

Can I give an example?  There is a sister in an active community in the 1940s.  She doesn't want to teach first grade but she is assigned to a first grade classroom.  She doesn't know what to do with the little children and they are out of control but out of obedience she went.  It isn't ideal but the sisters who are her grade partners are helping her and she finds that even though small children are not her preference she makes it through with the help and guidance of her sisters.  Now there is an active sister in a teaching community in the 1980's.  She is assigned to first grade but she hasn't studied elementary education.  She has a degree to teach high school biology.  She isn't certified and shes going to a school where she will be the only teaching sister (This is VERY common now in schools that congregations operate).  Out of obedience, she approaches her superior and shares her concerns.  Her superior prays about it with the sister and they come to the discernment that it would not be just for the children or for the sister for her to be put in a position where she could potentially derail their education (when they are supposed to learn to read!)  They also agree that it isn't fair for parents to be paying for their childrens education from someone with no training or certification or help from other sisters.  

 

In the first example, obedience is lived by the sister in the circumstances of her time.  There was no important certification needed to teach and she was surrounded by other sisters who could help her to learn.  She went, she learned, it wasn't great but she made it through.

 

In the second example, obedience is lived by the sister in the circumstances of her time.  She was unqualified professionally, she had no one to help her and she knew that it was unjust for her to accept the assignment without raising her concerns.  The superior and she prayed about it and another decision was made which sister accepted.

 

Neither sister was trying to do HER will.  Each sister was trying to do God's will in the time and circumstances that surround them.  It's no new obedience - its the same obedience in different circumstances.  

 

Sister Marie, thanks for the reply. I'm not saying that everyone here is against everything pre-VII, but I've seen comments several times criticizing pre-VII thinking. I'm not sure what people mean though.

 

I agree with you that we need to become Saints in our circumstances right now, and of course each Saint did that :) I'm a little confused about how this relates to obedience though, because in my understanding, obedience is not something that really has changed. If it's a bit harder to be obedient to a superior today compared to a hundred years ago, I think personally if I found it hard for me (and I'm sure I would!) - I would try to fight that in myself. If our society promotes ideas that make obedience harder, I think that this doesn't mean that we should not try to be obedient as much as we can?

 

But maybe I just misunderstand what you mean?

 

Thanks for providing the example. Maybe we're talking past each other because I was talking about something a bit different. If I could provide an example that would show my understanding of the idea... what I'm talking about is something like this: a successful businesswoman enters the convent. There, she is asked to do a very humble simple task and another Sister, is asked to do something that involves some of the things the first Sister has been good at in her career (like organizing, etc). She might feel (and I'd probably feel that way!) a little resentful, especially if the task she's given proves to be kind of difficult. She might not have encountered something like this in the world, where succeeding and choosing the 'greatest' jobs is encouraged. However, this might help her to find more humility and orient herself better to the convent, and later on, she might be given that other task so she can contribute her talents. If she were given it in the first place, she might have contributed her talents from the start, but she might not have grown in the virtue of humility in that way. I just made up this example and maybe it's not perfect. Maybe the Sister already is very humble and didn't need this, and would have been given the task suited to her talents, from the start. I'm just assuming that maybe the superior saw that this is something that could be beneficial to her. So again, out of charity, not for some other reason. :)

 

If there's a real concern about being sent somewhere etc, I've never been in a convent so I don't know how it works, but I suppose like you said, nowadays they'd be allowed to say their concerns to the superior. I don't know but I think that in the end, it's still good to place the decision in the superior's hands, - the ultimate decision, after everything has been discussed :)

 

I agree that the difference in teaching could be that today, there is more certification that is needed. I think I was thinking of something else and maybe we're kind of speaking past each other in this thread! (probably this is the case with my response to other posters as well, if that's the case, I'm sorry about that).

Thank you, Sister Marie.  And let me just add one more little "p.s." to what you have said.  If you read the vows of obedience in most communities, the vow is not to any human being, but to God.  That is why prayer and discernment is so important. Our understanding of the vows has evolved, which does not mean that those in the past were wrong, but that they had a different context. Today, The formation in theology, as well as in professions, is far more sophisticated and advanced than it was even 50 years ago.  It would be a violation of the vow of poverty to waste that training by assuming that only one person (the superior) in a community had the wisdom that is at the foundation of obedience.

 

I was with a sister this weekend who has been the major superior of her community for a little over a year. She is a woman with a doctorate, and someone who is wise as well as educated. But she says that one thing she has learned most forceably in the past year is what she does NOT know.  She prays more than ever, and consults more widely than she ever did. She has a council she trusts, but even beyond that, there are many sisters who have insight and wisdom, as well as knowledge in particular areas, that are greater than hers.  She ALSO is obedient--to God, to the collective wisdom of the community, and so on.  

 

In short, obedience is a very complicated vow (which is why it is both taken with great seriousness AND understood by most as the most difficult of the vows).  It is not simply a matter of issuing or following orders.

Of course, obedience is given firstly to God. I think the view in religious life is that the superior represents Christ, and so should be respected as such? I don't think the idea is that the other Sisters might not know anything or not be trained ? - but maybe that the superior has that authority. Of course, there are limits to this, for example we're not obligated to do something sinful. (We might still be asked to do something that is not sinful at all, but not our preference or what we like). Of course, superiors should be wise too, just as spiritual directors :) But I think the idea of having a superior in the first place, though its' related to having the wisdom to guide the other Sisters, - could also be related to the need for an authority to make decisions, and also to promote order.

 

Absolutely Nunsuch!  Thanks for adding that our obedience is to God through our superiors.  I think that is part of the reason some abuses occur.  Sisters or communities become fixated on the idea that perfect obedience is in doing what one is told by the superior that they lose sight of the unique person for whom God has a loving plan in front of them.  Sisters are human too and these ideas lend themselves more to the power that can be destructive.

 

Another point I wanted to make is that while it seems that acceptance and "Yes, sister" are really the virtuous stances in obedience, I personally see them as the easier stances.  It is incredibly difficult to go to a superior and share how God has been speaking to your heart especially when it is in opposition to an obedience issued or when it precedes some decision.  It requires a great amount of vulnerability, honesty, willingness to be wrong, willingness to be right but still be given an unsatisfactory decision, willingness to accept that decision.  Giving voice to God's word in your heart is much more difficult than saying "Yes, Sister."  It also requires a lot more from the individual sister to be responsible, in obedience, for the future of the community by holding God's word in her heart and discerning with the rest of her sisters.  

 

Again though, its about living obedience in our modern world - not in a world from long ago.  

I'm thinking about the first paragraph in your post and the idea that focusing on following everything a superior says, might make someone lose sight of God's individual plan for them. In reading about the Saints, it seems to me that they did follow everything they were told, and God even told them to do this, but in the end, God's will was done - either through the superior, or the superior changed their mind, if God's plan was different (like how St Faustina's director didn't agree with her revelations at first, but then did after a while.) In reading about the Saints, it does seem that God really wanted them to take obedience to their director/superior very seriously. Of course, there are times when this can't happen for example if a person were told to do something sinful, but Im talking about other examples, and even if the superior was mistaken at some point, eventually all difficulties were taken away.

 

I agree that it must be very difficult to share with a superior what God has been speaking to your heart. Of course, we should follow God's inspirations. I think what I'm trying to say, is that the Saints who did this (for example St Faustina) - they didn't argue with their superior if the superior didn't agree at first, but in surrendering everything to God, - later He was the one who changed their mind. :) So it's not like we need to do something impossible. It's really all in God's hands.

Edited October 1, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Excellent article ND - thanks so much.

 

I especially like these paragraphs...

 

'But that aside, let's remember not to cut off bits and pieces of a spirituality that we like. The "good parts" by themselves are only parts, not the whole.'

 

I haven't time to respond more fully to your comments on my post MLF but Sr Marie has put things so beautifully and answered so completely that maybe I don't really need to add anything. Let me pray about it. :)

 

Nunsense,

No problem, :) but please let me know if you have any thoughts. I think maybe it's possible we were talking about different things. Sometimes it's a little unclear on a forum.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I just wanted to clarify, regarding the point about the Saint sharing their inspirations from God with their superiors... it seems there are several alternatives:

 

- God showed His will through the superior

- the Saint received an inspiration about something in prayer and the superior ordered to do something else (provided it's not sinful in itself) - this is the example I meant in my other post. It seems in this case, the superior later changed their mind if they were mistaken.

- another case is if a Saint received some revelation, and the superior was skeptical and didn't agree with it. In these cases, it seems Saints suffered a lot. However as they prayed and waited, God changed the mind of their superior over time.

 

Of course, we should follow God's inspirations, but in regards to a superior's response -  a person can't really control that, but it seems like in many cases, mistaken superiors were later corrected. Of course, it's great if they are not mistaken! it's very important to approach everything prayerfully and humbly, if one is a superior.

 

But in my original topic, I meant something else though :) I meant our will vs superior's will, not - God's inspiration and the superior's understanding of it.

Edited October 1, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[God's Beloved]

I think Obedience needs to be understood according to context. In consecrated life , generally it is patterned on the obedience of Christ to the Will of the Father , obedience of Mary at the Annunciation , other major events mentioned in the gospel and day to day events in her life . Biblical studies show how Obedience  in the lives of the major figures in the OT and NT was never Blind.

 

As Catholics we treasure Scripture and Tradition with the big T. The traditions with a small  t   especially in religious communities although significant , need to be adapted to the signs of the times. One is obliged to obey the Commandments mentioned in Scripture and taught in Sunday school. One is obliged to obey Church teaching on various matters.

 

Today, in several Conferences of Leaders of Religious communities , they are struggling to deal with 'Immaturity' among  the religious. There are concerns about stunted emotional growth  , inability to take smallest decisions required by mature Leaders serving the church and the world [  religious have moved a lot into the world of service compared to some centuries ago when they were  leading protected lives in cloisters ....where it was okay not to have to take decisions .....also because it hardly affected  the  wider world outside the enclosures].

 

But today , religious need to be mature , able to Discern God's will  every moment of ministry . In several religious communities the pattern of obedience is different. There is increasing sense of community discernment . Instead of superiors they have co-ordinators or animators . In some communities they take turns annually  or according to fixed periods , to take turns to be the co ordinator of their community. Major decisions are taken jointly by praying to the Holy Spirit.

 

In today's internet world,  we often hear that it is impossible to control what children and youth will read , watch , listen on the  web. It is becoming important to train them instead ....to be Discerning.

 

If religious / consecrated life does not walk with the rest of the Church according to the signs of the times ......then............