Cloister? Not cloistered?

[Nunsuch]

3 hours ago, Egeria said:

If I remember correctly (I can't find sources now), it was Thomas Aquinas who first formulated (or at least clarified) such a distinction. In any case, there was a definite shift in the understanding of active and contemplative from that found in the patristic period to that found in the second millenium West. Father Gabriel Bunge discusses this in his book Earthen Vessels, where he points out that, for the Fathers, both of these exist in one person, even sometimes at the same time, and are two stages or aspects of the same path. The active (praktike) refers to the external aspects of prayer and the struggle with the passions, while the contemplative (theoria) refers to its natural horizon and goal.

This would simply not apply to  women's congregations, as de Periculoso was formulated around the same time and mandated strict enclosure for ALL women's communities. [See Elizabeth Makowski's excellent book on this.] Of course, the fact that such mandates were recurrently repeated--frequently--suggests that practice was very different from prescription. Nevertheless, the active/contemplative thing--which Sister Letitia has already noted is a false dichotomy--is a relatively modern thing. It certainly dates back no further than the counter reformation (see, for example, Teresa Ledochowska on Angela Merici), but really becomes pronounced in the 19th century.

[Egeria]

3 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

This would simply not apply to  women's congregations, as de Periculoso was formulated around the same time and mandated strict enclosure for ALL women's communities. [See Elizabeth Makowski's excellent book on this.] Of course, the fact that such mandates were recurrently repeated--frequently--suggests that practice was very different from prescription. Nevertheless, the active/contemplative thing--which Sister Letitia has already noted is a false dichotomy--is a relatively modern thing. It certainly dates back no further than the counter reformation (see, for example, Teresa Ledochowska on Angela Merici), but really becomes pronounced in the 19th century.

I suspect that we may be talking at cross purposes. I was not referring to women's monastic (or other religious) identities, much less to enclosure, but rather to an underlying shift in the understanding of the concepts of active and contemplative. At least by the time of Thomas Aquinas (he uses the terms in that way here and discusses active religious life here), the understandings of active life and contemplative life had undergone a fundamental shift from what they had signified in the patristic era (Fr Gabriel outlines this well in the book I linked to above and basically just reproduces the teaching of Evagrius, a pre-eminent monastic theologian). That women were excluded from the new forms of life that emerged hardly negates the shift that had occured.

[OnlySunshine]

Another community that I'd recommend is the Sister Servants of the Eternal Word in Irondale, AL.  A few past members of Phatmass were Sisters with this community - Lilllabettt and CherieMadame.  Both said good things about that community.  A difference between them and so-called "cloistered" communities is that, while they are contemplative, the SSEW are semi-contemplative - meaning they interact with the public during scheduled retreats but they are more contemplative than an active/contemplative community.  Not sure if they are something you are interested in, but they could provide the balance you seek.

http://www.sisterservants.org/

Have you also considered visiting any Visitation Nuns?  They were formed by St. Francis deSales and St. Jane deChantal with the idea that older women or those with physical limitations could still participate in religious life and they do not require such austerities such as perpetual fasting or waking late at night for Divine Office.  One such community I'm familiar with is the one in Snellville, GA who have a Desert Experience retreat which is similar to a live-in, but not as long.  May be something you would be interested in?

http://www.visitationmonasterymobile.org/HTMLcode/Inquiry.htm

[Nunsuch]

5 hours ago, Egeria said:

I suspect that we may be talking at cross purposes. I was not referring to women's monastic (or other religious) identities, much less to enclosure, but rather to an underlying shift in the understanding of the concepts of active and contemplative. At least by the time of Thomas Aquinas (he uses the terms in that way here and discusses active religious life here), the understandings of active life and contemplative life had undergone a fundamental shift from what they had signified in the patristic era (Fr Gabriel outlines this well in the book I linked to above and basically just reproduces the teaching of Evagrius, a pre-eminent monastic theologian). That women were excluded from the new forms of life that emerged hardly negates the shift that had occured.

Well, since the majority of vowed religious were women, it is not a universally relevant point, which is what I was saying. The praxis and history of women, particularly when they are the majority, is not something to be ignored. The fact that Aquinas considered them insignificant doesn't mean we should, centuries later....

[Egeria]

10 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Well, since the majority of vowed religious were women, it is not a universally relevant point, which is what I was saying. The praxis and history of women, particularly when they are the majority, is not something to be ignored. The fact that Aquinas considered them insignificant doesn't mean we should, centuries later....

I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. I am neither defending nor attacking Aquinas, but to dismiss his influence strikes me as silly. The categorisation of religious as either contemplative or apostolic had a major influence on women religious in later centuries. In particular, it had serious consequences for monastic women who were forced into categories that were not really appropriate for them. (The same thing happened to monastic men, but with less obvious consequences because of the enclosure thing). But it also had serious consequences for women earlier than that in that the rise of the second order mendicants created a new sort of hybrid religious who had a dual identity (part monastic and part Dominican, Franciscan, etc.) that was specifically feminine - and aspects of this (enclosure, bridal imagery, the notion of "contemplative", just read Verbi Sponsa) have been imposed on women in the earlier monastic tradition for whom it is not really appropriate.

[Nunsuch]

4 hours ago, Egeria said:

I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. I am neither defending nor attacking Aquinas, but to dismiss his influence strikes me as silly. The categorisation of religious as either contemplative or apostolic had a major influence on women religious in later centuries. In particular, it had serious consequences for monastic women who were forced into categories that were not really appropriate for them. (The same thing happened to monastic men, but with less obvious consequences because of the enclosure thing). But it also had serious consequences for women earlier than that in that the rise of the second order mendicants created a new sort of hybrid religious who had a dual identity (part monastic and part Dominican, Franciscan, etc.) that was specifically feminine - and aspects of this (enclosure, bridal imagery, the notion of "contemplative", just read Verbi Sponsa) have been imposed on women in the earlier monastic tradition for whom it is not really appropriate.

Of course it had serious consequences for women; see, in particular, the work of Elizabeth Makowski on de Periculoso, and that of Elizabeth Rapley on the counter reformation. But for those who believe that women should have agency over their own lives and spirituality, it is highly problematic. Finally, in my original response to you, I was simply trying to suggest that drawing a distinction between active and contemplative *for women* at the time Aquinas wrote was pointless, since vowed women were not permitted such a choice.