Are You Of Jesuit Spirituality?, Faithful Congregations Of This Spirit

[AugustineA]

It's interesting when we are talking about what we want in religious life because of what a mystery God's call really is.  Many of us, in the spirit of wanting to give God all, imagine what we think that "all" must look like.  It certainly seems like giving "all" is most evident in the form of religious life that is more externally restrictive, or rigorous, or different from the social norm.  Visually, from the outside, it certainly seems like the very formal prayer life, common life, and religious garb point to a more radical way of giving "all."  However, giving all consists only in following God's will where God calls you.  Often the "all" God asks us to give includes our expectations and wants in religious life.  In this sense, each rule or constitution is robust in its own way and each member gives his or her all in a self-sacrificing manner.  

 

For one giving all might look like the very restrictive or externally rigorous religious life - especially someone who is more of a free-spirit.  This would certainly be more difficult for that person.  Likewise, giving "all" for the person who values security, stability, and clear expectations might be done more fully in a community that calls the person to discern with others, make decisions together, and live in circumstances that can change according to ministry and community needs.  

 

I would have thought early in my discernment of religious life along the lines of what you wrote above but the way to grow in holiness is to allow God to stretch us by giving God our "all."  I have been so blessed that God somehow kept me out of the way of his plan so that I ended up where I did.  I can't imagine another place where I could give my "all" to God.  Objectively, you wouldn't call my community's constitutions especially rigorous, but the daily living of it in my person certainly is.  It has challenged me, changed me, encouraged me, and provided me with the framework to give God my "all."  

 

I was glad to read your sense of gratitude for the good work of many sisters.  If I might dare to offer you a personal challenge... not to be answered here but for yourself... would you call the sisters in a more traditional community "little old ladies?"  Maybe you would and meant no offense by it... maybe you meant it affectionately... but maybe it's something else, subconsciously, that makes them "little old ladies" instead of "sisters" in your mind.  If it's the latter, it might be something to spend some time thinking and praying about.  If you enter religious life, you will meet religious you admire and religious you don't admire... yet they will still be brother or sister to you regardless... you don't want to forget that about them.

 

I'm only speaking for myself, and should probably preface what I'm about to say  by sharing that I have no inkling as to what my religious call looks like. I agree with what you're saying. For the priest who wants above all things to live in poverty like St. Francis, a cushy posting in Rome with a car and apartment may be his trial. It is his poverty, and so is comparable to the habit.

 

In my personal experience, visual separation has its own functional merits. We identify priests but what they wear. It's a symbol, and symbols are very important in our faith, the analogical and anagogical. They help us understand how we relate to things, and that includes religious brothers and sisters and laity. 

 

Physical signs also have inherent merit. God likes physicality; He created it. Physical acts show outwardly but also effect change inwardly, and so outward discipline impacts our spiritual discipline as well. Tradition is after all transmitted physically, but is the packaging of greater spiritual treasure. I hope that explains why I see great value personally in the entirety of the traditions of religious life, including the outward trappings and find them very efficacious.   :)

 

When I think of it, I have heard two people before take some sort of offence (despite being young themselves) at the term "sweet old man/lady". Of course, it was intended with affection, and no your hunch is misplaced. The photo posted in here is of well.. sweet looking older ladies. Hence the term. I find it more curious why you thought I wouldn't feel gratitude at their work or forget about them? We all after all are Catholics. We belong to the same Church, and we should all appreciate the various expressions of the body so long as they are permissible. If by my understanding I take to support the traditional orders outwardly, it doesn't mean I don't wish the best and brightest for the rest and support them all in prayer!

[AugustineA]

I would have thought early in my discernment of religious life along the lines of what you wrote above but the way to grow in holiness is to allow God to stretch us by giving God our "all."  I have been so blessed that God somehow kept me out of the way of his plan so that I ended up where I did.  I can't imagine another place where I could give my "all" to God.  Objectively, you wouldn't call my community's constitutions especially rigorous, but the daily living of it in my person certainly is.  It has challenged me, changed me, encouraged me, and provided me with the framework to give God my "all."  

 

 

Honestly, that's good to hear, and I'm glad I read your post a second time sister. Who knows, maybe God will give me a smack in the head and I'll end up a clean shaven Jesuit doing his will somewhere haha. Life is funny that way..

[Sister Marie]

I'm only speaking for myself, and should probably preface what I'm about to say  by sharing that I have no inkling as to what my religious call looks like. I agree with what you're saying. For the priest who wants above all things to live in poverty like St. Francis, a cushy posting in Rome with a car and apartment may be his trial. It is his poverty, and so is comparable to the habit.

 

In my personal experience, visual separation has its own functional merits. We identify priests but what they wear. It's a symbol, and symbols are very important in our faith, the analogical and anagogical. They help us understand how we relate to things, and that includes religious brothers and sisters and laity. 

 

Physical signs also have inherent merit. God likes physicality; He created it. Physical acts show outwardly but also effect change inwardly, and so outward discipline impacts our spiritual discipline as well. Tradition is after all transmitted physically, but is the packaging of greater spiritual treasure. I hope that explains why I see great value personally in the entirety of the traditions of religious life, including the outward trappings and find them very efficacious.   :)

 

When I think of it, I have heard two people before take some sort of offence (despite being young themselves) at the term "sweet old man/lady". Of course, it was intended with affection, and no your hunch is misplaced. The photo posted in here is of well.. sweet looking older ladies. Hence the term. I find it more curious why you thought I wouldn't feel gratitude at their work or forget about them? We all after all are Catholics. We belong to the same Church, and we should all appreciate the various expressions of the body so long as they are permissible. If by my understanding I take to support the traditional orders outwardly, it doesn't mean I don't wish the best and brightest for the rest and support them all in prayer!

 

You are absolutely right that visual and objective representations are good things.  I'm just cautioning against making them the substance of a call instead of marks of it.  The substance is the person who is faithfully responding to God's call within a particular community and a particular rule of life.  The spiritual treasure doesn't change because the packaging is different and that's why it is so good that the Church approves and encourages rules and constitutions that provide a variety of ways to live the life of vowed consecration.

 

I wasn't really surprised that you felt gratitude for them, I'm sorry if it seemed that I was doubting your authenticity in that.  I wasn't doubting you, just happy to see your gratitude!  Sometimes people look down on the work religious do if they don't view them as religious so I was just thanking you for expressing that gratitude because its nice to see and hear.

 

 I don't really take offense to the term sweet old lady unless its effect, regardless of intent, is to reduce the person to something other than what they are or to reduce their way of life to something it isn't.  I don't think that is what you were doing, I just know that human nature (and I include myself in this!  I do it too!) is to take people who don't fit in our worldview and make them by labeling them or putting them in a box.  Let me tell you, I live with some sisters who might be called sweet old ladies by someone who doesn't know them but they aren't. They are passionate, tenacious, energetic, wise, and deeply prayerful women religious.  They  are powerful, in the sense of carrying God's will and work within them, because of their identity as women religious.  The Gospel demands that things in our world get shaken up... and generally... sweet old ladies don't do a whole lot of shaking things up.  Neither do "pretty young sisters" which is a similar label I encounter that doesn't do a whole lot for recognizing the point and purpose of religious life - to get to Heaven and bring as many people with us as we can.  That requires an intense living of the Gospel and it does shake things up.  

 

Honestly, that's good to hear, and I'm glad I read your post a second time sister. Who knows, maybe God will give me a smack in the head and I'll end up a clean shaven Jesuit doing his will somewhere haha. Life is funny that way..

 

Life is funny!  Who knows what God wants until later when we can look back and see how God has worked in our lives.  I hope all the best for you and your discernment.

[Nunsuch]

Sister Madeleva Wolff, longtime president of St. Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN, and a Sister of the Holy Cross who entered early in the 20th century, said in her autobiography ("My First Seventy Years--well worth reading!) that when she first saw the habit of the CSCs, she thought it was the ugliest thing she'd ever seen!  Don't know whether she ever changed her mind or not--but she wore it happily and worthily for over 50 years. 

 

I also really like Sr. Marie's insight that physical things like the habit are the marks of a call, but not the substance of it.  And while it certainly is true that God created physical things and called them good (I have a really Incarnational spirituality), we should not forget that clothing (in the form of fig leaves) was not "invented" by God but by Adam and Eve, and only in shame after their disobedience!   :hehe2:  Seriously, it's fine to admire and value a religious habit. But I wonder why it is one of the most contentious aspects of so many discussions about vocation and religious life, when it really is not the essence of it at all....  :unsure:

Edited May 4, 2014 by Nunsuch

[AugustineA]

 

 

 I don't really take offense to the term sweet old lady unless its effect, regardless of intent, is to reduce the person to something other than what they are or to reduce their way of life to something it isn't.  I don't think that is what you were doing, I just know that human nature (and I include myself in this!  I do it too!) is to take people who don't fit in our worldview and make them by labeling them or putting them in a box.  Let me tell you, I live with some sisters who might be called sweet old ladies by someone who doesn't know them but they aren't. They are passionate, tenacious, energetic, wise, and deeply prayerful women religious.  They  are powerful, in the sense of carrying God's will and work within them, because of their identity as women religious.  The Gospel demands that things in our world get shaken up... and generally... sweet old ladies don't do a whole lot of shaking things up.  Neither do "pretty young sisters" which is a similar label I encounter that doesn't do a whole lot for recognizing the point and purpose of religious life - to get to Heaven and bring as many people with us as we can.  That requires an intense living of the Gospel and it does shake things up.  

 

 

Life is funny!  Who knows what God wants until later when we can look back and see how God has worked in our lives.  I hope all the best for you and your discernment.

 

Yeah, I admit, I would be less likely to use that term, even though I meant well with it, to a sister in a habit. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but it would certainly be less likely. But it's exactly like you said. We place things in boxes. When I realized you were religious I immediately re-read your post and felt stupid for my response, because I put religious brothers and sisters in a box that says "caution, respect, pay attention, holiness". I'm not saying it's right, especially if we ought to treat everyone equal. These sorts of things are difficult to overcome. 

 

I will hereby not use the terms sweet old lady or pretty young sisters in relation to religious. Some of those sisters are really cute though, even if their holiness is like the wrath of God itself.  :unsure:

 

 

Sister Madeleva Wolff, longtime president of St. Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN, and a Sister of the Holy Cross who entered early in the 20th century, said in her autobiography ("My First Seventy Years--well worth reading!) that when she first saw the habit of the CSCs, she thought it was the ugliest thing she'd ever seen!  Don't know whether she ever changed her mind or not--but she wore it happily and worthily for over 50 years. 

 

I also really like Sr. Marie's insight that physical things like the habit are the marks of a call, but not the substance of it.  And while it certainly is true that God created physical things and called them good (I have a really Incarnational spirituality), we should not forget that clothing (in the form of fig leaves) was not "invented" by God but by Adam and Eve, and only in shame after their disobedience!    :hehe2:  Seriously, it's fine to admire and value a religious habit. But I wonder why it is one of the most contentious aspects of so many discussions about vocation and religious life, when it really is not the essence of it at all....   :unsure:

 

 

I actually hadn't realized it was a contentious issue. I think there is sometimes a culture that develops around discernment and these sorts of questions, which I know nothing about. I just never thought about it, my default setting was always set to habit. (oo double entendre) 

[Sister Marie]

Yeah, I admit, I would be less likely to use that term, even though I meant well with it, to a sister in a habit. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but it would certainly be less likely. But it's exactly like you said. We place things in boxes. When I realized you were religious I immediately re-read your post and felt stupid for my response, because I put religious brothers and sisters in a box that says "caution, respect, pay attention, holiness". I'm not saying it's right, especially if we ought to treat everyone equal. These sorts of things are difficult to overcome.

I will hereby not use the terms sweet old lady or pretty young sisters in relation to religious. Some of those sisters are really cute though, even if their holiness is like the wrath of God itself. :unsure:



I actually hadn't realized it was a contentious issue. I think there is sometimes a culture that develops around discernment and these sorts of questions, which I know nothing about. I just never thought about it, my default setting was always set to habit. (oo double entendre)

Augustinian, first let me say, good job being so honest wih yourself! It takes a lot of effort sometimes for people to be as honest as you just were! I hope you don't really feel stupid because you definitely are not! Thank you for answering honestly. I know your intentions were pure but human nature is what it is... I do the same thing but with different groups of people. It's something I'm working on too. I have to laugh at your statement "I hereby...". Don't feel that you can't express yourself but it's good to question always what you are thinking or how you view others (and yourself) because that's one of the ways we grow.

Trust me, I'm not criticizing your preference. I wear a habit and pray daily with my sisters. I just know that neither of those are what are helping me grow in holiness. Today one of the sisters in my house came home from a celebration where the homilist called the martyrdom of religious life by community "martyrdom by sandpaper." Community is what brings me closer to god and makes me a holier woman. I hear God's voice most clearly through my sisters regardless of what they are wearing.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Sister Marie

[AugustineA]

Thank you sister. I'll pray God gives me the grace to see the holiness others around me. Pray for me? 

[Sister Marie]

Thank you sister. I'll pray God gives me the grace to see the holiness others around me. Pray for me? 

Absolutely!

[ruso]

Dears Sister Marie and Nunsuch.

 

I have not attempted to criticize the social work they do some sisters. What ever will resonate, is the great work of many sisters who are faithful to each other and the Church as you. Nor Jesuit spirituality, if I mentioned, is because i like me. After my time at the Opus Dei, look for something different.

 

The Pope's Jesuit, but was exiled when the libs Jesuits(followers of Liberation Theology among other things)  took control of the province of Argentina, he was rescued by John Paul II and the cardinal Quarracino.

 

I mentioned various issues about some religious sisters, not just social work, and I know the matter,  I do not speak of things unknown. Years ago, we had in this forum an acrimonious debate on the Legion of Christ, before the outbreak of the scandal Macial Maciel, in the end, was even worse than what we said here criticize the Legion. To what we sister Marie says, has happened to other religious, the best example is Mother Teresa, seeing the poverty of Calcutta, decided to do something about it, but fidelity to the Church, which is not the case for all the religious who have taken to do good works

 

Among other things there sisters justifying abortion: Suor Viqui Molins, he said without hesitation that would help a young woman who decides to abort

 

http://www.lavanguardia.com/lacontra/20131225/54397533786/la-contra-viqui-molins.html

 

Teresa Forcades, defender of abortion, feminism and anti-church founder of a political party.

 

http://iglesiadescalza.blogspot.com.es/2009/10/sr-teresa-forcades-told-by-vatican-to.html

 

Donna Quinn, dominic sister, volunteered to accompany women who abort.

 

 

Could make a much longer list, only with sisters USA and Spain, the situation is serious, as the letter from Cardinal Muller says.

 

 

Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious(LCWR)

April 30, 2014

 

Opening Remarks 
By Cardinal Gerhard Müller

 

 

I am happy to welcome once again the Presidency of the LCWR to Rome and to the Congregation. It is a happy occasion that your visit coincides with the Canonization of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, two great figures important for the Church in our times. I am grateful as well for the presence and participation of the Delegate for the implementation of the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment, Archbishop Peter Sartain.

 

As in past meetings, I would like to begin by making some introductory observations which I believe will be a helpful way of framing our discussion.

 

First, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment. Archbishop Sartain has kept the Congregation appraised on the work regarding the revision of the LCWR Statutes and civil by-laws. We are glad to see that work continue and remain particularly interested that these foundational documents reflect more explicitly the mission of a Conference of Major Superiors as something centered on Jesus Christ and grounded in the Church’s teaching about Consecrated Life. For that collaboration, I thank you.

 

Two further introductory comments I would like to frame around what could be called objections to the Doctrinal Assessment raised by your predecessors during past meetings here at the Congregation and in public statements by LCWR officers. We are aware that, from the beginning, LCWR Officers judged the Doctrinal Assessment to be “flawed and the findings based on unsubstantiated accusations” and that the so-called “sanctions” were “disproportionate to the concerns raised and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.” This principal objection, I note, was repeated most recently in the preface of the collection of LCWR Presidential Addresses you have just published. It is my intention in discussing these things frankly and openly with you to offer an explanation of why it is that we believe the conclusions of the Doctrinal Assessment are accurate and the path of reform it lays before the LCWR remains necessary so that religious life might continue to flourish in the United States.

 

Let me begin with the notion of “disproportionate sanctions.” One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a “sanction,” but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.

 

An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well.

 

I realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor will be viewed. It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain was informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate’s provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection of honorees results from a process, but this case suggests that the process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that plans for this year’s Assembly are already at a very advanced stage and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees.

 

Let me address a second objection, namely that the findings of the Doctrinal Assessment are unsubstantiated. The phrase in the Doctrinal Assessment most often cited as overreaching or unsubstantiated is when it talks about religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus. Yes, this is hard language and I can imagine it sounded harsh in the ears of thousands of faithful religious. I regret that, because the last thing in the world the Congregation would want to do is call into question the eloquent, even prophetic witness of so many faithful religious women. And yet, the issues raised in the Assessment are so central and so foundational, there is no other way of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.

 

For the last several years, the Congregation has been following with increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution.

 

Again, I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal Mystery.

 

My concern is whether such an intense focus on new ideas such as Conscious Evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to sentire cum Ecclesia. To phrase it as a question, do the many religious listening to addresses on this topic or reading expositions of it even hear the divergences from the Christian faith present?

 

This concern is even deeper than the Doctrinal Assessment’s criticism of the LCWR for not providing a counter-point during presentations and Assemblies when speakers diverge from Church teaching. The Assessment is concerned with positive errors of doctrine seen in the light of the LCWR’s responsibility to support a vision of religious life in harmony with that of the Church and to promote a solid doctrinal basis for religious life. I am worried that the uncritical acceptance of things such as Conscious Evolution seemingly without any awareness that it offers a vision of God, the cosmos, and the human person divergent from or opposed to Revelation evidences that a de factomovement beyond the Church and sound Christian faith has already occurred.

I do not think I overstate the point when I say that the futuristic ideas advanced by the proponents of Conscious Evolution are not actually new. The Gnostic tradition is filled with similar affirmations and we have seen again and again in the history of the Church the tragic results of partaking of this bitter fruit. Conscious Evolution does not offer anything which will nourish religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ revealing divine love to a wounded world. It does not present the treasure beyond price for which new generations of young women will leave all to follow Christ. The Gospel does! Selfless service to the poor and marginalized in the name of Jesus Christ does!

It is in this context that we can understand Pope Francis’ remarks to the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General in May of 2013. What the Holy Father proposes is a vision of religious life and particularly of the role of conferences of major superiors which in many ways is a positive articulation of issues which come across as concerns in the Doctrinal Assessment. I urge you to reread the Holy Father’s remarks and to make them a point of discussion with members of your Board as well.

I have raised several points in these remarks, so I will stop here. I owe an incalculable debt to the women religious who have long been a part of my life. They were the ones who instilled in me a love for the Lord and for the Church and encouraged me to follow the vocation to which the Lord was calling me. The things I have said today are therefore born of great love. The Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deeply desire religious life to thrive and that the LCWR will be an effective instrument supporting its growth. In the end, the point is this: the Holy See believes that the charismatic vitality of religious life can only flourish within the ecclesial faith of the Church. The LCWR, as a canonical entity dependent on the Holy See, has a profound obligation to the promotion of that faith as the essential foundation of religious life. Canonical status and ecclesial vision go hand-in-hand, and at this phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more substantive signs of collaboration.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2014 by ruso

[Egeria]

The issues that Cardinal Müller addresses are real, but my personal experience of such trends is among sisters who wore a full habit. Such trends, which are complex and need to be addressed with care and without polemic, do not justify labeling religious (who have a variety of charisms, lifestyles and apostolates) because of what they do or do not wear. In any case, it is for the hierarchs of the Church to deal with such issues, not for judgmental posters on the internet.

[cmaD2006]

Ok I am choosing to close this thread before risking it degenerating into something it should not be.

 

Ruso -- I do respect your opinion, but in VS please refrain from debating LCWR vs CMSWR communities, or the "traditional vs liberal" communities.

 

There are sisters on this forum whose communities are in LCWR, yet they are a very faithful group.  And there are women discerning communities in LCWR.

 

In both liberal and traditional communities, you will find saints.  You will also find sisters that are not.  Period.

 

Ruso -- if you desire to continue the argument please reopen a thread in debate table.  There it would be more appropriate and would not change the tone of this phorum.