Admissions Process For Women's Orders?

[Nunsuch]

MLF, you may also find this article from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia to be of interest, on the Manifestation of Conscience.  Please note that this refers to a ruling of Pope Leo XIII: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09597a.htm

[Sister Marie]

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?

I do think maybe you are misunderstanding me. You seem to be coming from the premise that obedience is being dumbed down, for lack of a better phrase, because our culture and society promote values that are contrary to obedience which makes it harder to be obedient. Yes, our individualistic society makes obedience difficult but that isn't the reason obedience doesn't always look the same. Being able to speak the discernment one has done in her own heart takes nothing away from obedience. It doesn't mean that one has stopped fighting her will in order to be obedient either. I'm coming from the premise that the world has changed in good and bad ways and that so has the way we live the virtue of obedience so it isn't a museum exhibit but a living witness to our world now. In my examples I tried to show how both sisters lived obedience. Neither sister was more obedient than the other. The times and circumstances had changed and in light of that the expression of obedience changed as well. The sister who went had no real reason not to go. The sister who spoke to the superior didn't do so for her own well being but out of a sense of Justice for the families spending their money for a teacher who was uncertified and unqualified with no resources. Both were equally obedient in keeping with the time in which they lived. Personally, I think it would have been easier to be the first sister and just go than to have to raise concerns to the superior and then submit myself to her judgment.

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. :)

I would be careful with how closely one identifies ones superior with Christ. It's his job to ensure our salvation and our growth in holiness and the last thing religious need to do is start equating the way a superior might do this with the way Christ treats us. Growing in humility is great but there are more than enough opportunities in daily convent life for this to happen. No superior needs to craft situations to test a sister or to teach her a lesson. Religious life and living with other women in general tends to help in that area naturally. I would also be afraid if a superior really believed she were that able to judge the hearts of her sisters. I think it would help me more to become humble if sister said to me, Marie, you seem to really need a lot of affirmation and I think you need to worry about others more than yourself so would you go work in the infirmary. No games, no tricks- just honest care and concern for a sister and her growth and for a community need.

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 don't think anyone is arguing that the superiors decision isn't final- it's just that it doesn't have to be made without dialogue.

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).
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.

Again, the superior is a representation of gods will for us but we have to be careful about how we internalize that. The superior isn't Jesus. Imagine if you believed that your superior really knew what was absolutely best for you and she did everything for your salvation and represented Christ for you...And she didn't like you or was downright mean to you. You might end up thinking, especially if you are new to religious life, that her behavior towards you was a mirror of Jesus' behavior towards you.

Here are two paragraphs from canon law about the superior that speak to her role more clearly

Can. 618 Superiors are to exercise their power, received from God through the ministry of the Church, in a spirit of service. Therefore, docile to the will of God in fulfilling their function, they are to govern their subjects as sons or daughters of God and, promoting the voluntary obedience of their subjects with reverence for the human person, they are to listen to them willingly and foster their common endeavor for the good of the institute and the Church, but without prejudice to the authority of superiors to decide and prescribe what must be done.

Can. 619 Superiors are to devote themselves diligently to their office and together with the members entrusted to them are to strive to build a community of brothers or sisters in Christ, in which God is sought and loved before all things. Therefore, they are to nourish the members regularly with the food of the word of God and are to draw them to the celebration of the sacred liturgy. They are to be an example to them in cultivating virtues and in the observance of the laws and traditions of their own institute; they are to meet the personal needs of the members appropriately, solicitously to care for and visit the sick, to correct the restless, to console the faint of heart, and to be patient toward all.

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.

God always takes care of us but is it that hard to believe that part of Gods care for could be using our own words to express what is in our hearts and minds with respect and filial love. Talking about something doesn't make ones obedience any less serious. If you think it does, could you explain that to me?

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.

I don't think anyone here is advocating arguing with the superior. They are advocating a mature and active obedience in keeping with the times in which we are living. That is also in Gods hands. Saint Faustina lived in a time where her obedience was lived well and provided a valuable witness. We live in a different time and our obedience is lived well and is a witness as well.

[AccountDeleted]

MLF - Sr Marie has responded to this topic so beautifully and comprehensively that I can't imagine what more I could contribute. If you have anything specific you would like me to respond to from our previous posts, please ask, but I agree completely with everything Sr Marie has said- and she has said it so well too. :)

[cmaD2006]

I have to say this:

 

Sr. Marie -- you rock :).  That was a response that I wished I could prop 1000 times. 

 

Having been in a community where it was hounded in our brains that the founder was "the voice of God" (or something to that effect) it is refreshing and great to read that the truth is -- superiors (and founders, and priests, and nuns, and every person who thinks and breathes) ARE fallable.  They are humans.  They can make mistakes.

[TheresaThoma]

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?

 

I'm 99.9999999% sure that your certificate of Sacraments of Initiation is perfectly fine. I have something similar since I came in as an adult. Basically you just need proof that you are baptized and Confirmed in the Church.

 

As far as the conditional baptism that is very common with adults that they can't solidly prove were validly baptized. It most often happens when either a) these is no certificate(s)/paperwork to prove the baptism or b) the validity of the baptism is in doubt, either it is known that the denomination does not use the Triune formula or it is unclear if they do or not. Either way it is better to do a conditional baptism to make sure, if you were validly baptized before, congrats you got wet. If not, congrats you're now baptized!

[AveMariaPurissima]

I know this thread is somewhat old, but since it got mentioned recently in another thread, I was reading through it again.  I found it interesting to read about the extensive forms, exams, etc. that many people mentioned as being requirements in the entrance process.  For me it went like this: after several visits to the convent and praying, I discerned that I was called to this particular community.  I told Mother that I thought I had a vocation there, and she agreed.  At the time, she gave me two possible entrance dates; a few months later, one of the Sisters called me and told me the date Mother had decided on.  On the day decided upon, I entered.  That was it; no application, no psyc eval, no medical exam, no sacramental certificates, no references, etc.  Compared to what I've read on Phatmass and other places, it seems a bit unusual.

[Anselm]

I've had to give two references and will have a psychological assessment during postulancy, but the 'application form' was a one page thing that the Novice Master had drawn up that afternoon.

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

I know this thread is somewhat old, but since it got mentioned recently in another thread, I was reading through it again.  I found it interesting to read about the extensive forms, exams, etc. that many people mentioned as being requirements in the entrance process.  For me it went like this: after several visits to the convent and praying, I discerned that I was called to this particular community.  I told Mother that I thought I had a vocation there, and she agreed.  At the time, she gave me two possible entrance dates; a few months later, one of the Sisters called me and told me the date Mother had decided on.  On the day decided upon, I entered.  That was it; no application, no psyc eval, no medical exam, no sacramental certificates, no references, etc.  Compared to what I've read on Phatmass and other places, it seems a bit unusual.

 

Did they ask for anything before one entered the novitiate proper? According to canon law one has to provide proof of baptism, confirmation, etc. and free status. Everything else is according to the proper law of an institute. All the other things communities usually ask for is either because of proper law or exercising prudence and discretion in admitting a candidate. 

[OnlySunshine]

I know this thread is somewhat old, but since it got mentioned recently in another thread, I was reading through it again.  I found it interesting to read about the extensive forms, exams, etc. that many people mentioned as being requirements in the entrance process.  For me it went like this: after several visits to the convent and praying, I discerned that I was called to this particular community.  I told Mother that I thought I had a vocation there, and she agreed.  At the time, she gave me two possible entrance dates; a few months later, one of the Sisters called me and told me the date Mother had decided on.  On the day decided upon, I entered.  That was it; no application, no psyc eval, no medical exam, no sacramental certificates, no references, etc.  Compared to what I've read on Phatmass and other places, it seems a bit unusual.

 

If I were in that situation, I'd be really leery. 

 

I was in a similar situation twice where the Provincial Superior of two separate communities said that I could join, no questions asked, if I felt I had a vocation to their community.  Both knew my history with depression and the fact that I was on medication but I NEVER once visited either community!  I felt really uneasy about the situation and wondered if their lack of vocations was making them seek out applicants who were not screened or even if they had not visited.  The fact that I personally know someone who is unstable and has entered at least 4 different communities without proper protocol followed, I would not want to be in a community that looked for vocations like that.  My friend's community (a different friend) has suffered 2 setbacks from Sisters who went through final profession and caused major problems for the community.  Both showed signs of mental instability and both were admitted before the psych exam was used.  In fact, the first problem was what caused the community to give exams in the first place but they didn't do them retroactively.

 

Knowing this, I fully understand why communities use exams but I don't think it should be an absolute indicator of whether the person is suitable or not. 

[AveMariaPurissima]

Did they ask for anything before one entered the novitiate proper? According to canon law one has to provide proof of baptism, confirmation, etc. and free status. Everything else is according to the proper law of an institute. All the other things communities usually ask for is either because of proper law or exercising prudence and discretion in admitting a candidate. 

I was only a postulant when I left, so I don't know for sure.  I do know that the prospective novice had to write a letter formally asking for admission to the novitiate, but other than that I don't know.