Again, that is the danger of a community that is expedited by the personality of a pope and given his direct personal prelature; answerable to him. Very dangerous as we now see in hindsight. It seems that JPII was not always “traditional” in all of his actions.

My knowledge is limited but most significant religious communities had a founder who inspired or called the community forth. But, would argue that these communities also had “marks” that included a charism (separate from the founder; so not a personality cult); had constitutions/rules that set out the charism as separate from the founder’s personality; had a succession plan; met a glaring need of the church and society (again, well beyond just supporting the personality cult of the founder).

CARA has had some comprehensive studies about the life cycle of religious communities by Nygren & Ukeritis. (self-disclosure – Nygren and I are old friends; one year apart in grad school and worked on the same college formation team) Their research indicates that “most” religious communities develop because of an immediate need, grow, reach a plateau, and slowly die over a 300 yr. period. There are obviously some exceptions to this pattern. The also laid out what US communities need to do in the next 10 years or face a decline. From their executive summary: “In the final section of the executive summary Nygren and Ukeritis conclude that, “Fidelity to the spirit of the founder and responsiveness to critical and unmet human needs are basic to the ongoing mission of religious communities.” They present a call to action for religious communities by identifying eight issues that must be addressed if religious communities are to respond effectively to the challenges of the twenty-first century.
They asked Jon Padberg, SJ to expand this into an historical look back.

I am aware that some of the largest and most significant religious communities have gone through their own cycles of rising, death, rebirth, etc. The reasons can be internal divisions; external suppression by society or church e.g. Jesuits from the church; other orders via the French Revolution; Spanish Civil War, etc. In some of these cases, a “second” founder enabled the original charism to be reborn; the community flourished again, and continues today.

If you agree with Nygren’s conclusions, then the connection to the founder’s charism and the mission are the two central components of any community. Specifically to your question, it would seem that LC would have a very difficult time continuing in the light of this research and a current mission that seems to focus more on their own growth than a need of the current church or society.

Links: http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/grantproduct.aspx?PRDID=e461879b-1b42-4b7f-aae3-4bac2a228480

I see the catechism as the playbook for secrecy that kept bishops from reporting abuse, transferring priests to unsuspecting parishes, the primacy of avoiding scandal, the lack of a right to the truth for survivors, their attorneys, and the public. I know, they never meant to…but they can legitimately claim their judgments were right in line with the text.

No matter, we just have contrasting views of the Magisterium. It’s allowed (grin).

A few practical differences:
- the ordinary will change a numbe of times and the priest is obedient to whomever occupies the diocesan position as bishop or temporary leader of the diocese
- religious communities are also complicated – some are apostolic; some are monastic, etc. but the vow of obedience is to the religious communitie’s charism, mission as directed by the community’s current leadership. That leadership will also change over the lifetime of a priest but the vow is to the community’s charism, mission via a superior, provincial, abbot, etc. In fact, one advantage for religious communities is that they do not answer to a bishop but to their communities leadership which answers to Rome. (granted, for a religious to minister in a specific diocese, he needs permission of that diocesan bishop). But, his ministry, where he lives, serves, etc. is determined by the religious community; not a diocesan bishop.

You ask: “What teachings of the Magisterium have been associated with scandal?”

Without getting into a lengthy back and forth, I believe this catechism section on secrecy qualifies:

2488
The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489
Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. ***The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion.*** No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it

But, I wonder if there is any practical difference between a vow of obedience and a promise of obedience? Basically, either means to obey the bishop, yes? Is the distinction a technical or a substantive one?

Perhaps the violation of a promise is not as serious a matter as the violation of a vow. Is one mortal, the other venial? It’s a world unto itself, and I learn. Better late than never.

So, in popular understanding, a sister is a nun, when technically, she is not. And who knew she is not considered clergy? Neither is a religious brother, who is exempt from being reported by bishops for sexual abuse in their annual audits — because, after all, only clergy are counted; meaning seminarians’ abuse is also excluded.

Maciel instituted private vows not to say anything negative about him or any superiors in the order, and to report those who do. Why that police state initiative was not a huge sign of repression is beyond me. And in violation of canon law, your supervisor was your confessor and spiritual director. It was those vows that his victims kept in fear and trembling during the first Vatican investigation decades ago, and therefore lied in exonerating Maciel.

So much of church organization seems really about power and control couched in religious terms, the concentration of which is worrisome. The proper exercise of authority is not especially visible. I hope the Visitation team is astute enough to forego all the fawning submission usually bestowed very effectively by the Legion on hierarchy. “As your humble servants, we promise whatever you want in total obedience.”

(I read in Weakland’s autobiography — got a quick peek the other day — that an experienced bishop told him early on that his choice was to support his priests or the curia. The pattern goes right up the line.)

Carolyn Disco — note that secular as opposed to religious priests do not make vows of obedience. They promise obedience and respect to their bishop and his successors on ordination day, that’s all. Neither do they make vows of chastity; they sign a promise to live as celibates some time before receiving the order of diaconate (or formerly subdiaconate).