Professions

[Veritas]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1329612' date='Jul 15 2007, 02:54 PM']I agree. This thread is not turning into something good. [/quote]

+

It seems like a necessary purification for all of us.

"Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of right living." -Saint Augustine.

Edited July 15, 2007 by Veritas

[jkaands]

[quote name='Veritas' date='Jul 15 2007, 01:09 PM' post='1329545']
+

<<You've made a lot of assertions in this post!

I'm not sure that the large communities, which you state "are far more in line with rank-and-file Catholicism" are receiving more vocations combined -especially vocations under 30 or even 40 for that matter. [url="http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/02/28/vocations-flowering/"]http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/02/28/v...ions-flowering/[/url] In fact, I seem to recall seeing some studies recently, which confirm just the opposite. I believe they were out of Georgetown (anyone interested in researching this?).

Pope Benedict XVI has said, "Overcome the temptation of a mediocre life, made of compromises with evil." >>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Veritas makes a good point. I don't [i]know[/i] about the numbers. Only time will tell. The Georgetown reference is CARA, the sociology think-tank of the US church. They publish the numbers every year, prob. the most reliable ones. They have published data which support the preference among entrants for habit, community life, traditional religious observances. No argument there. Any perusal of websites will confirm this, I think.

Percentage-wise the new 'trad' communities are growing the fastest. They also have the best press. The recent AP spread on young nuns featured the DMME's running around playing soccer, not the often-chubby (yes, I've said it--I'm 'chubby' too) older recruits in civvies in the 'updated' orders. My arguments are: to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the death of the 'updated' orders are premature. Secondly, in line with what other 'massers have said, not all of the updated are heretical. They may just [i]look [/i]heretical. I included the link to an 'updated' community because I came across it, buried in the "What's Happening" section of their website, not splashed on the front page which the go-getter communities seem to do. I expected little interest, and did not anticipate this onslaught of responses.

My background, or, why am I here. I am OLD, I grew up during the 180,000-of-them (sisters)- heyday of religious orders, when women wore at least ten pounds of wool and starch year round, and then I watched the whole thing change, fall apart, and re-invent itself. Not too many 'massers watched this whole thing first-hand. Although I have been happily married (once) for years and have grown daughters, I was very interested in religious life at one point, and renewed that interest with the internet. I suspect that I am not alone. I also have a strong interest in history and sociology, and have a background in art history, which means I know a lot of iconography and religious history. I tend to focus on the practical and down-to-earth and what is actually happening. I have no axe to grind. My only point is: the evolution of religious orders in the US has not played out. Only time will tell.

I suspect that there [i]is[/i] a lot of competition among religious orders of certain types. There may not be. One would have to ask vocation directors about this.

I have consistently [i]encouraged [/i] all 'massers trying their vocation, old and young, men and women. Check my posts, including a number of recent posts. All or most are entering 'trad' communities or at least communities not called into question; this means that I have encouraged entry into communities which are at the very least acceptable to PM.

Now, a comment on the threads re nuns' and brothers' habits:

We all like habits, to look at them anyway. BUT: do you [i]know t[/i]hat ALL of the religious in those pictures are orthodox? Many are from Europe, many from France, where Archbishop Lefebvre lived, and the SSPX was founded and thrived. Most of the SSPX religious orders are in France, and all wear habits. The 'massers who post the images may know many of the orders pictured, but I infer from the posted comments that apparently not all of them are known. We know, from the experiences of some 'massers re the SSPX orders in the US, that it can be hard to ferret out the truth re these orders. It often isn't posted on the website. One 'masser had to write and ask a community point-blank re its fidelity. We have also discovered that there appear to be grey zones of fidelity among these orders. It may be even harder to figure out the alignment of some of the European orders featured in these threads. One has to find the name of the order, go to the website, and find confirmation of that order's fidelity to the magisterium. This may require being able to read the website in the original language. One may have to write the order, again possibly in their own language, and have to ask them point-blank about their loyalty. I have found myself looking at these images--they're fun to look at-- and noting the lack of comments re the origins of these religious. If I were concerned about orthodoxy, I would like to see some hard information re these orders, who they are and what their position is.

My point is that the enforcement of fidelity should go both ways. It can mean doubting the fidelity of the 'updated' orders, but it also means not posting photos of habits of uncertain provenance.

Regarding my assertion that the 'updated' orders are more in line with the concerns of rank-and-file US Catholics, I simply mean that the fact that these orders are focussing their missions on peace, justice, ecology, and the preferential option of serving the poor and disenfranchised, coincides with many of the concerns of US Catholics. I don't believe that because you [i]don't [/i]wear a habit and you [i]do [/i]work in these fields means that you have to be heretical.

Edited July 15, 2007 by jkaands

[Veritas]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1329706' date='Jul 15 2007, 03:35 PM']Now, a comment on the threads re nuns' and brothers' habits:

We all like habits, to look at them anyway. BUT: do you [i]know t[/i]hat ALL of the religious in those pictures are orthodox? Many are from Europe, many from France, where Archbishop Lefebvre lived, and the SSPX was founded and thrived. Most of the SSPX religious orders are in France, and all wear habits. The 'massers who post the images may know many of the orders pictured, but I infer from the posted comments that apparently not all of them are known. We know, from the experiences of some 'massers re the SSPX orders in the US, that it can be hard to ferret out the truth re these orders. It often isn't posted on the website. One 'masser had to write and ask a community point-blank re its fidelity. We have also discovered that there appear to be grey zones of fidelity among these orders. It may be even harder to figure out the alignment of some of the European orders featured in these threads. One has to find the name of the order, go to the website, and find confirmation of that order's fidelity to the magisterium. This may require being able to read the website in the original language. One may have to write the order, again possibly in their own language, and have to ask them point-blank about their loyalty. I have found myself looking at these images--they're fun to look at-- and noting the lack of comments re the origins of these religious. If I were concerned about orthodoxy, I would like to see some hard information re these orders, who they are and what their position is.

My point is that the enforcement of fidelity should go both ways. It can mean doubting the fidelity of the 'updated' orders, but it also means not posting photos of habits of uncertain provenance.

Regarding my assertion that the 'updated' orders are more in line with the concerns of rank-and-file US Catholics, I simply mean that the fact that these orders are focussing their missions on peace, justice, ecology, and the preferential option of serving the poor and disenfranchised, coincides with many of the concerns of US Catholics. I don't believe that because you [i]don't [/i]wear a habit and you [i]do [/i]work in these fields means that you have to be heretical.[/quote]

+

Ah, but the habit IS required. Not wearing one is disobedient.

Good post. Thanks for sharing. The thing with the nun-habit photos is that there are not links provided. Just photos. When there are links provided they are done so by someone familiar with the communities and their character or standing. It has seemed to me that pm'ers do an excellent job of marking when sv or sspx communities accidentally wind up on the board. No one is accepting and promoting those communities either.

I agree, a concern for creation, poverty, peace and justice isn't heretical within reason and properly ordered in the totality of Catholic teaching. There needs to be something more. Again, the habit issue -they should be wearing one.

[HeavenlyCalling]

[quote name='stlmom' post='1329488' date='Jul 15 2007, 01:02 PM']I'm feeling a bit stung by the age reference as well as Alicemary. I would like to continue to post here, but I will only do so if the other participants feel my contributions are helpful to the forum. I would appreciate feedback--thank you.[/quote]
Your contributions are very, very, welcome, at least to me, and I know that many others feel the same.

I do not agree with the statement that the 'rank and file' Catholic join orders with a reputation of dissent. The CARA research has proved year after year that orders that follow the renewal of Vatican 2, not the 'Spirit of Vatican 2' are expirancing maybe not growth, but have enough vocations to sustian themselves.

I think that diversity in religous life is a good thing. Different orders ( Dominican, Franciscan, Carmelite ) who work in different apostoletes ( education, heath care, ect ) add vibrancy to the Church. But dissent is not diversity. Dissent breaks the Church up, and does not add to it.

Just my two sense

[philosophette]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1329015' date='Jul 15 2007, 12:32 AM']I also find it interesting that a handful of men and women in their 40's and 50's find it necessary to come and "diversify" vocation station when our young discerners are quite happy with the communities that fit into phatmass's mission, which are often expounded and expanded upon. The fact that there may be favorites is a blessing -they are good and faithful sisters and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The discerners here know about fidelity and they know about prudence and they have common sense. I'm not quite sure why certain folks feel the need to "broaden" into heresy and dissent. It's dishonest and a disservice.[/quote]


Veritas, I do not think it is appropriate for you to speak for all of the discerners on PM. You also appear to equate older people on PM with a support of disobedient and questionable religious communities. That is a broad generalization that I do not in any way support and I really question your thought process on this. An occassional occurance does not make for a norm. I have seem far more young people come on here and link to schismatic religious orders than "older" people.

Perhaps this was not what you meant but many people, including myself, seem to be reading it as that, so perhaps you might wish to qualify your statement about older people in VS.

I personally would find PM to be less rich and less balanced if we did not have people like alicemary, stlmom graciela and others here.

When a forum is posted on the internet like phatmass it is to be expected that people of all ages shall participate. This was not billed as a "young people" only area. I think we under appreciate the wisdom of our older members and I think that most of us on here would suffer from the lack of their thoughts.

And what do you mean by this?

[quote]It seems like a necessary purification for all of us.

"Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of right living." -Saint Augustine.[/quote]

I comment on how this thread is not turning into something good and you comment that it is a necessary purification? A purification from what, pray tell? From opinions we do not necessarily agree with? From religious orders being promoted that do not wear habits?

Stop acting like you are more knowledgeable than the rest of us. You are hurting a lot of our valued posters; whether or not you intended to is another issue.

I hope this thread is locked before it gets worse; it still maintain that it is not turning into something good.

It is of course the moderator's privilege to edit posts as they feel is necessary, but to pretend that these other religious orders do not exist and to try to make them taboo is not a healthy way to deal with abuses in religious life or a life style that we may not feel is ideal. I think it is fine that he took a link out, we can still discuss the order and why we may not like their lifestyle. I feel that is is important that young discerners know they exist so that they can see a contrast to what is better. How do you know something is good without seeing what is not? Perhaps God might call someone to this order so that they can help renew it. Nothing wrong with that.

I support the moderator's final decision on all of this, but the generalizations that have been read from your words is not a positive contribution to the Vocation Station.

Edited July 15, 2007 by philosobrat

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1329527' date='Jul 15 2007, 01:34 PM']+

I would recommend this be done on a pm/message level. It isn't appropriate for this kind of feedback to be public.[/quote]

A public comment does not outlaw a public explanation when it's asked for. I'm not saying it's wrong to answer through PM - I could care less. But your logic doesn't add up when you say that it's not appropriate to publicly back up a statement you publicly made.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Totus Tuus

[Veritas]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1329984' date='Jul 15 2007, 07:15 PM']Veritas, I do not think it is appropriate for you to speak for all of the discerners on PM. You also appear to equate older people on PM with a support of disobedient and questionable religious communities. That is a broad generalization that I do not in any way support and I really question your thought process on this. An occassional occurance does not make for a norm. I have seem far more young people come on here and link to schismatic religious orders than "older" people.

Perhaps this was not what you meant but many people, including myself, seem to be reading it as that, so perhaps you might wish to qualify your statement about older people in VS.

I personally would find PM to be less rich and less balanced if we did not have people like alicemary, stlmom graciela and others here.

When a forum is posted on the internet like phatmass it is to be expected that people of all ages shall participate. This was not billed as a "young people" only area. I think we under appreciate the wisdom of our older members and I think that most of us on here would suffer from the lack of their thoughts.

And what do you mean by this?
I comment on how this thread is not turning into something good and you comment that it is a necessary purification? A purification from what, pray tell? From opinions we do not necessarily agree with? From religious orders being promoted that do not wear habits?

Stop acting like you are more knowledgeable than the rest of us. You are hurting a lot of our valued posters; whether or not you intended to is another issue.

I hope this thread is locked before it gets worse; it still maintain that it is not turning into something good.

It is of course the moderator's privilege to edit posts as they feel is necessary, but to pretend that these other religious orders do not exist and to try to make them taboo is not a healthy way to deal with abuses in religious life or a life style that we may not feel is ideal. I think it is fine that he took a link out, we can still discuss the order and why we may not like their lifestyle. I feel that is is important that young discerners know they exist so that they can see a contrast to what is better. How do you know something is good without seeing what is not? Perhaps God might call someone to this order so that they can help renew it. Nothing wrong with that.

I support the moderator's final decision on all of this, but the generalizations that have been read from your words is not a positive contribution to the Vocation Station.[/quote]

+

Just posting my observations. Notice I said a "handful" -that does not equal everyone. Please note, I clearly said that age is a legitimate diversity and I think it is great if people of all ages are here. However, if those individuals are promoting dissent, that is a problem. Regarding age, it seems like the handful is all of the same generation and from a socio-historic standpoint that is interesting -we all know about the VII effect perhaps, not certainly, but perhaps there is a connection. ?

The purification is regards to the mission of pm and the intent of all of us as members of this community. It is for us to be intentional and well-formed -to be obedient and disciples, no? Well, who is the teacher? It is Christ, it is his Church.

The "contrast" question, which you raised is an interesting one... I'm not sure if I agree, I haven't heard ultimately convincing arguments on either side. However, I am definitely not beyond learning and so I appreciate the conversation. Overall, I think this discussion is very helpful in ascertaining what pm is all about and why.


If dUSt says it doesn't matter what links we have and whom we recommend, then I wholeheartedly defer to his judgement. At this point, however, not only does it seem like some folks are using the forum outside of the guidelines perhaps unintentionally, but that they intend to do so intentionally in the future. That is of concern. That is why we are talking about this. There's nothing to be afraid of -we are just searching for the truth together.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Veritas

[Veritas]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' post='1330042' date='Jul 15 2007, 08:17 PM']A public comment does not outlaw a public explanation when it's asked for. I'm not saying it's wrong to answer through PM - I could care less. But your logic doesn't add up when you say that it's not appropriate to publicly back up a statement you publicly made.[/quote]

+

I don't think you understood what I meant. I was addressing those that might have things to say to stlmom regarding the feedback she requested. I suppose if it is affirmative, it is fine to be posted publicly. However, if it is other, it wouldn't be appropriate -kind- to post that publicly. However, I'm sure no one has anything unkind to say to stlmom.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Veritas