Got cash?
September 29, 2009, 4:04 pm
Posted by Lisa Fullam
NCR reports that Cardinal Rode, the initiator of the Vatican’s visitation of US women’s apostolic religious communities, is asking the US bishops to pony up the $1.1 million to cover costs.
Hmmm….what if they gave a visitation and nobody paid? What if the bishops decided they had more urgent budgetary priorities, and just said no? Just a thought…
When we last visitated this subject, weren’t there insinuations of vaguely sinister and anonymous wealthy string-pullers who were funding this exercise, for motives that were so ulterior that they never quite emerged?
Someone has to pay the bills for this. Having the dioceses, or the women’s religious congregations, or some combination thereof, pay for it seems more fair than the other possibilities.
I can just hear the conversation now:
Trust us: we are doing this for your own good!
Yes, Reverend Cardionl — the check is in the mail.
PS — when do I get to wear a pretty red dress and cloak like you?
Oope — that should be Cardinal.
I can’t personally think of a better use for my spare cash. Reformation of religious orders is historically key to the reformation of the Church at large.
A great thought and pivotal. From Cardinal Hayes to Spellman to Egan money seemed always prominent. Withdraw funding and everybody listens. Amazing. Of course Jesus was silly for not having a home and living in poverty.
Why do we tolerate such titles and pageantry as “Prince of the Church?” Seems like something that could only be in play because of threats and force.
What is especially concerning to me is the fact that Rohde is a member of the Congregation of the Mission, the Vincentian Fathers, a follower of Vincent dePaul and co-founder with Louise deMarillac, of the Daughters of Charity, the largest order of sisters in the world.
He comes out of the Slovakian province of the Vincentians. The charism of Vincent is to serve the poor via missionary, formation, and parish missiions. And yet, you have a man who has left his community to be a part of the curia and is now directing an indepth look at US female orders.
Seems that this man has traveled a far distance from his original call, charism. What would Vincent dePaul think?
The communities under scrutiny are dying. Few active communities can spare sisters to care for the poor, as most are retired or caring for the retired sisters. Renewal is exactly what is needed for the sake of the poor.
Kathy,
Really? How simplistic and tendentious are your comments. The visitation is not a movement of renewal it is disciplinary and retributive. How cynical of Rome to expect the US bishops to fund it, not to mention the congregations themselves paying for the travel and upkeep of the inquisitor. Have you no decency?
Alan, I wonder how you would deal with a student comment in your class that ended, “Have you no decency?” Let’s keep it real, not hysterical, shall we?
Reality is, the CARA report says that LCWR communities’ most common mean age is 76. The communities are dying and the younger nuns are often serving the older nuns, rather than serving the poor.
I heartily endorse placing any money at the service of the poor, older, infirm sisters, so that the younger members can serve the poor. That seems like the best route to renewal.
Kathy,
I do not get student comments like that; your observation is off point, but quite predictable as are many of your contrarian posts. I believe you are out of your depth when it comes to women religious in this country.
Despite their decline in numbers they continue to do remarkable things for the Church, things which build on the long tradition of their service without adequate recompense and recognition from priests and bishops who have exploited them. Far more successfully than congregations of men did they respond to the call of renewal after Vatican II to return to the charism of their founders. Too bad that it led them down paths that the Vatican now repudiates. Likewise did they explore and open up new opportunities for evangelization in places and to people neglected by the clergy. All of this, they did making great sacrifices for the sake of the Church. And despite the fact that, In many parts of the country, they are the ones who do the real ministry of the Church, what thanks have they gotten? An unwarranted apostolic visitation that will now cost over 1 million dollars at a time when the Church across the board is strapped for funds. You are the one who should keep it real.
Jim, how can that route be a likely long-term solution, given that only 6% of LCWR women in perpetual vows are younger than 60, 73% of LCWR communities have two or fewer women in formation, and 56% of those who are in initial formation in LCWR communities are in their 40s or beyond?
Alan, your ideas are interesting. A backbone institution of the Church quite literally declines, and your response is to thank those responsible.
Jim McK,
If you have not heard of SOAR, Support Our Aging Religious, please visit:
http://www.soar-usa.org/.
Anyone can make a donation to help sisters who have no real retirement finds to speak of because they were never justly recompensed by bishops and priests who employed them. Many of these sister are living in sub-standard conditions, subsisting on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. SOAR distributes the money it collects as grants to congregation in such need. They do marvelous work and are deserving of support.
Kathy,
You just do not get it.
Alan,
The investigation is not aimed at the individual sisters, who have given their lives in service. It’s aimed at leadership, and rightly so. Anyone in charge of any organization which is so important and which declines so precipitously that it extinguishes itself should expect to have their leadership role challenged from above, and yes, they should take the auditors out to lunch.
Kathy,
You just do not get it.
Alan,
Your computer appears to be malfunctioning.
Male religious have the same declining numbers as do most dioceses. Therefore there should be an investigation of Egan and Chaput. The Sisters of Erie Pa gave the Vatican its greatest rebuff in history when they tried to silence Joan Chittister. This is no doubt a round about way of getting to people like that. Truly shamelss from a bunch of ……
Bill,
The male orders and dioceses were investigated, in a reasonably parallel way, by the seminary investigation.
Alan – thought you said it well – “she does not get it!” or “I believe you are out of your depth when it comes to women religious in this country” or ” your observation is off point, but quite predictable as are many of your contrarian posts.”
Any careful analysis of the CARA studies would indicate that the total number of actual vowed nuns/sisters is so low that you really are unable to draw any type of conclusion that Kathy is suggesting. Even the largest of the conservative num orders have very few vocations – CARA counted women at all stages of their formation – not just vowed members. So, who knows what the final numbers will be?
It is a fact that the number of women in vowed communities are aging, dying, and quite a few communities will die out. If you understood the history of religious communities in the church, you would know that (with a few exceptions – both male and female), the average lifespan of a religious community is less than 200 years. Good historians have shown that this cycle has held up for more than 1000 years – communities come into existence to meet the need of a time, the church, the culture, the region. They successfully address this need via their charism; the church evolves as do the signs of the time and communities die. Not unlike the paschal mystery – growth, suffering, death, rising. Many of these “dead” communities live on in terms of the gift of their charism to the church – both local, regional, and worldwide.
Limiting yourself to the CARA study or to religious life as experienced in the last 150 years does not do justice to what these spirit-filled women have gifted the church with their charisms, education, spirituality. They are living sacraments.
The goal of coummunities is not self-absorption, perputual existence, etc. The church is in the midst of a paradigm shift in terms of ministry – a movement from the 19th century religious communities to lay groups that in some instances continue the charisms of these religious communities – e.g. Jesuit, Maryknoll, Vincentian lay volunteer groups; Jesuit Relief Services; Franciscan Third Orders.
Using numbers only to justify the health or viability of a community makes about as much sense as our earlier discussion that counting attendance at weekend liturgies tells us something dramatic about the church, faith, etc. Here is an accurate analysis of the CARA Study:
CARA Study Given Wrong Twist
by Ken Briggs
“The fine study of new members of religious communities by the Center for Applied Research on the Apostolate is unfortunately being used to support a bogus conclusion.
News reports have taken the results to bolster the false notion that there is a surge of growth in conservative, habit-wear congregations that belong to the Vatican-favored Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious. This growth, as assumed in major media accounts, is a rebuke to the “no-growth” liberal communities that belong to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious which is under investigation by Rome for alleged disobedience.
To the fierce opponents of LCWR and its member groups (about 95 percent of all of them) this “proves” that the renewal undertaken by these groups has failed, while the keepers of the old nun tradition are thriving.
Hogwash. CARA found slightly fewer than 4,000 new members in women’s and men’s orders since 1993. Of that number, about 40 percent returned the survey, 73 percent of those women. If that percentage holds true for the entire population of new members, about 3,000 have entered about 450 women’s communities.
Over the 15 year stretch, that amounts to about 200 a year in both LCWR and CMSWR groups.
That’s infinitesimal. About one third of the LCWR related groups report no new members; but a fourth of the CMSWR say the same. Overall, two-thirds of the total are CMSWR related, meaning that using a base of 200, they have gained about 132 a year, not exactly a deluge.
But here’s the biggest factor that usually goes unreported. HALF of the newcomers in BOTH umbrella groups lose half the new entries before they take their final vows. That doesn’t leave much in terms of real numbers.
I honor all those who enter whatever religious communities that they choose. Their devotion is admirable. But let’s not allow the slight tilting in the direction of traditional groups be portrayed as a major new direction and a slap at LCWR. Very few of any stripe are entering anywhere anymore”
In terms of this “investigation” – there are two separate parts – one directed at LCWR and one for all womens’ communities (with the exception of some of the monastic groups). Link to explain the history: http://ncronline.org/news/women/vatican-us-women-religious-tensions-go-back-decades
You also have the historical fact that these investigations are unusual – this is not the pattern the church as had with religious communities for the past 1,000 years. Link: http://ncronline.org/news/women/visitors-past
Alan – your post of 8:43 PM is right on……many could also benefit by reading the work of Ken Briggs – “Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church’s Betrayal of American Nuns”.
“Reasonably parallel way by the seminary investigation” – now that is a real stretch of the imagination.
What I learned most from this thread: Don’t mess with Kathy if you ain’t got the goods.
Grazie mille, my fellow contrarian.
Why are there fewer nuns now? Perhaps one of the reasons is money. In the hey-day of the American Church, the 1950s, nuns were either schoolteachers, worked in hospitals, or were contemplatives. They didn’t need much money because they spent so little on clothes, travel, professional expenses and the little expenses that anyone workong “out in the world” incurred. They were so isolated professionally they were even locked in their convents at night.
Then came, yes, Vatican II. They became full-fledged professionals with all the financial needs that incurs. But they *stll* had to take vows of poverty, unlike the diocesan priests who, though far from well-paid, were still paid a minimm by their dioceses a d supported in their retirement.
If I were a young woman who wanted to be a nun and professional of some sort, would i choose to join an order with very lean means of support? Probably not because it costs money to be a professional. Diocesan priests, on the other hand, can count on minimm wages from the diocese. Oh sure, there are a few nuns workng in chanceries, but the rest do not get their livelihood from the dioceses. Small wonder they die in poverty. In other words comparing the dearth of priests with the dearth of nuns is comparing apples and oranges.
Or do I have the facts wrong?
“CARA found slightly fewer than 4,000 new members in women’s and men’s orders since 1993. ”
That’s an incredibly low number, particularly for that long a span. I’d think that number of new members every year would hardly sustain the populations of the orders.
Mabye the whole idea of lifetime vows as the central form of religious life needs to be rethought. Why not a five year stint of full commitment, and then other vows that are compatible with other choices, including medical school, marriage and motherhood?
I don’t’ think the Holy Spirit is going to curl up and die because this form of life doesn’t draw as many people as it did.
If you don’t want your money going to this purpose, target the gift. Lots of people do that with other charities.
Cathy,
Your solution seems to be contraindicated by the CARA report, which shows that young people are choosing vowed religious vocations that demand more, not less, commitment. Or in John Allen’s interpretation, “high tension” vocations.
There are a lot of religious vocations these days, but the young people are not seeking out the LCWR communities.
iI think, based on my experience in teaching, a lot of people would like a high tension, limited commitment. Five years full time., say. I think you’d get a lot of people who’d give themselves, full time, between 22 and 27, say. The twenties are now a time of self-discovery, of exploration. Why not take advantage of it?
I’m not talking either branch of women religious–I think that very few people will join, in either liberal or conservative varieties.
But as I said, I’m not worried. The Holy Spirit blows where it will. People find a way to serve if they are called to serve.
Prof. Kaveny – one of my favorite priest friends, now vice rector of St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, CA, years ago proposed coummunity commitment and involvement based on ministry for periods of tiime. It is basically the model being used by the lay service organizations of large religious communities such as the Jesuits, etc. (as I mentioned above).
Like you, I think we will continue to see this type of development and evolution in the 21st century church – different but also the same as the religious orders that emerged in teh 17th/18th centuries.
“There are a lot of religious vocations these days, but the young people are not seeking out the LCWR communities.” Obviously, you don’t read the analysis of these numbers. Jim, you are correct; about 2/3′s over the last 15 years went to conservative orders & 1/3 to others. The CARA numbers do not reveal who actually stayed and vowed but using the historical averages – it would mean less than 60 per year. You are correct – spread over many communities this will not be enough to sustain the communities. (there may be a couple of exceptions but then take a look at what those communities do, their focus, ministry, etc. – they are not going to replace the current professional religious women in hospitals, universities, social agencies, etc.). The quote above is the type of statement you hear from Raymond Arroyo at EWTN – pick one piece of information; quote it out of context; do not subject it to rigorous analysis; and then blow it out of proportion and use it to say the sky is either falling or we have heaven on earth if only……..
There’s also the Retirement Fund for Religious, a fine option for your charitable giving if the demographics in the CARA report leave you concerned about the preponderance of elderly and retired sisters. (NB: I hadn’t heard of SOAR before now, and I don’t know what the difference is. Anyone?)
Good work Bill D. Raymond Arroyo it is. Sounds like the great work of fiction Colleen Carroll wrote in her book “The New Faithful.” More wishful thinking by the restoratinists than anything else.
Kathy,
Orders that are turned inward, eg to care for their own sisters, have less contact with potential recruits. Alleviating the needs of the older sisters could allow a greater outward ministry in tune with the earlier charisms of the various orders. Quite simply, teaching, nursing, preaching, etc. tend to be more visible and so more attractive than just caring for an elderly group of sisters.
(I am not speaking of contemplative communities, where a different dynamic is at play. There caring for elderly sisters can be an integral part of mission.)
Of course, the seminary visitation recommended an inward turn, cutting seminarians off from contact with non clergy. Not the way I would have gone…
The more demanding communities are attracting young people who want to make perpetual vows: http://www.stjean.com/EN/faqs_en.php
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090905/NEWS06/909050354/1970/NEWS04/Order+trains+largest+group+of+nuns+in+U.S
Jim, I agree that this charitable care for elderly sisters is not only a beautiful witness but an integral part of the community aspect of religious life. It is always part of community life. The problem is that for decades, the communities have failed to attract new members. They cannot maintain their outreach. Their professional status–I think Ann’s comment is very apt–has effectively rendered them insular.
“Mabye the whole idea of lifetime vows as the central form of religious life needs to be rethought. Why not a five year stint of full commitment, and then other vows that are compatible with other choices, including medical school, marriage and motherhood?”
I’ve thought the same thing. You live in community for a fixed number of years (like an army “hitch”) and then somehow, in some way, if you wish, re-enter the larger world while maintaining your attachment to the charism and spirituality of the community.
I think that notion is kind of a head-scratcher for those who currently live in religious communities now, though. E.g., how do you be a Benedictine if you don’t live in community with other Benedictines, as specified in the Rule? How do you fulfill your responsibilities to the community, which is, I think, intrinsic to the Benedictine way of life, if you’re not physically with the community?
It’s almost like we need a new kind of Rule.
Well, the Legionnaires had excellent enrollment. Things are not always what they appear to be. As many who were in those orders and congregations which had booming enrollments in the fifties.
I really don’t understand why a temporary vocation would be a solution to the current problem
For one thing, many communities already have auxiliary groups called “associates” or something similar, which are temporarily committed to the apostolic work of the community. In other words, that need has been met.
More importantly, temporary vocations aren’t a solution to the problem of attraction. Young people are attracted to orders requiring commitment. Communities that have reduced commitments are failing to attract young people. Why then reduce commitments even further?
So, what is the goal here? Self-perpuating religious communities via lifelong commitment?
Or, is it ministry and serving the gospel message – could be as a member of a community for a period of time; then, as a married person – mother/father; in retirement, go back to the religious community.
There are many, many goals.
Service to the poor.
Gospel witness.
Giving glory to God through consecration of life.
Add on any special forms you like, but none of them is the same kind of consecration as the lifetime commitment.
Surely no one here is actually suggesting that it would be better for young people if lifelong, vowed religious life were no longer an option for young people…
I read Sr. Kane’s piece on her anger at the hierarchy on the visitation at NCR today.
I think she speaks out the anger of many, many nuns who live the 3 goals Kathy mentioned.
I don’t think the problem of religious is based on money, their being more ‘professional;” – the Church obviously traded on their cheap labor while the male clergy did quite well (remember the dinner scenes in ‘Doubt” -I thin kquite accurate..)
I think the problem is not leadership, it’s contrarians who want to keep lurching back to a past that’s unreal today.They scrape up any bit of news they think can justify their poerspective (“new apologetic?”) but I heard Ken Briggs discuss this on NPR quite a while back and I think he has it right.
I know this won’t prevent another salvo from the Roman loyalists, but I don’t care as the good religious women will soldier on, as Sr. Kane noted as she has one life, one chance and hope infuses that.
Kathy–I think it will be an option–attractive to very few people, for good reasons.
I think we need to make other options available too, and am more interested in figuring out what they might look like.
Cathy, the other options are already available, and this option is in fact “selling” quite well–just not in the LCWR communities.
Kathy, if you think what Cathy K. is describing already exists in the form of lay associate programs, you’re either not understanding Cathy’s suggestion or not familiar enough with what lay associates are. Cathy K, if I’m following, your suggestion would be more like the post-college volunteer organizations (like the Jesuit or Mercy Volunteer Corps) that currently exist: those are high-tension, short-term commitments.
Yes. Really ramped up JVCs Mercy Volunteer Corps, Holy Cross Associates, etc. High tension, not necessarily short term (one year) but five years.
Not lifetime commitments –term commitments.
Co-ed
I think you could get lots of people to do that. You might even get the “cheap labor” back to some degree. It’s one thing to give a couple of years of your life to living at poverty level (aka graduate school), it’s another thing to do it forever.
BTW, I think the idea of giving money to the elderly sisters’ retirement fund is great.
Personally, I’d think it would be longer and more intensive than taking a year or two after graduating from college. The formation period in most religious orders spans a number of years and stages, and involves a tremendous investment of resources on the part of the order.
My previous post crossed Cathleen’s most recent – I was commenting on Mollie’s suggestion. I think we’re more or less on the same page here.
Mollie, true enough. Most lay associates are more like 3rd orders of the older communities, committed but not high-tension.
Still I think this idea is tangential. There are, in fact, many young people seeking to commit themselves to the vows, the evangelical counsels, for a lifetime. I don’t think that the failure of the LCWR communities to attract vocations can be willy-nilly ascribed to the will of the Holy Spirit.
While in school, (and beyond,) I’ve run into lots of people looking for what Cathleen and Kathy are both describing: Kathy’s three goals of
Service to the poor.
Gospel witness.
Giving glory to God through consecration of life.
(All of which seem to me to be the center of committed Christian living, yes, and not only applicable to those committed to the evangelical counsels.) What’s needed for those seeking “new” religious life Cathleen describes is institutional support in the forms of housing, job/service placement, formation and education, etc. Openness to people who are married or dating is essential, as are communal leadership structures that are more democratic/discernment based than hierarchical. The new monasticism is one response to this challenge. At my school, many of our lay students live in such communities during their time here, and some who stay in the area remain connected to the communities after they graduate. Many find it a powerful way to live their faith.
The religious life did not begin until Christianity got corrupted in the fourth century by becoming the preferred religion. Christians seeking a more authentic life formed groups which would conform more to the gospel. Religious orders became a big time refuge for women who were baby machines without rights and had a limited life if they bore children. Couple that with the Father’s of the church obsession with virginity which got exaggerated play. Take Vatican II’s emphasis on holiness for all Christians and the fact that sex was actually good (somewhat of a change in the last forty years) and the religious life lost its cache. All religious orders were a reaction to the lack of gospel living in the church at large. How do we get the whole church to converge on the gospel.
The three goals are really spot on. The ideal is to foster them in all walks of life as Lisa and others have pointed out. The sense of community is mostly lacking in parishes and in need of a revival. All great goals. Which is nice to see this thread take a real consensus in a constructive way. How we achieve this and how feasible could be an ongoing discussion.
Mollie,
I found the following on the SOAR web page. It describes the differences between itself and the National Retirement Fund for Religious
NRRO and SOAR! Similar Missions, Different Aims
The National Religious Retirement Office (NRRO) and Support Our Aging Religious (SOAR!) are both dedicated to advancing the cause of retired and infirm religious in the United States. While both organizations have similar missions, their daily objectives are different. SOAR! strives to meet the immediate and often physical needs of retired or infirm religious. NRRO helps religious institutes to build funds to pay for the long-term needs of retired and infirm members and assists religious institutes to plan for a viable future. Although annual appeals are helpful, NRRO raises about $600 for each sister or brother past the age of 70 in a typical year.
SOAR! supplements the efforts of NRRO, which raises about $25 million annually to benefit retired religious. Over its 22 year history, SOAR! has raised more than $9 million. During its first year, SOAR! was able to award grants totaling $100,000. In 2008, a total of $1 million was awarded to 66 congregations across the country. Grants have made so much possible — renovations for handicapped accessibility, the purchase of physical therapy and medical equipment, the installation of fire alarms and sprinklers, and nurse call and monitoring systems.
Mollie,
I should have added that NRRO, the National Religious Retirement Office is headquartered at the USCCB and administers the National Retirement Fund for Religious. It is sponsored by the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
I think another major difference between it and SOAR is that the National Retirement Fund for Religious is an Annual Appeal, whereas SOAR raises money throughout the year. Perhaps that also accounts for the larger amount of money that SOAR has raised over the years.
How many women in the past flocked to religious life in order to
1.not have pressure put on them to get married and have children
2.get a good education that was not available to them in secular life
3.have control over their lives with minimal male interference
4.experience travel, new living locations and expansion of personal horizons
5.have greater access to a wider variety of helping service
6.have a truly religious life as opposed to washing and ironing the altar linens
7.etc.
In today’s society, women have much more independence and the ability to do the things that were restricted or not available to them in the past.
I am not negating a religious vocation but I think today’s women can have a religious vocation that is played out in the secular world.
I wonder how many women who join the more conservative communities do so to escape, not have to worry about making their way in the world — and want to avoid pressure to marry and have families?
“Kathy’s three goals of
Service to the poor.
Gospel witness.
Giving glory to God through consecration of life.
(All of which seem to me to be the center of committed Christian living, yes, and not only applicable to those committed to the evangelical counsels.)”
Hi, Lisa, I had much the same thought. There exists among many of us a hunger, I think, for a more intensive and committed way of Christian living, which our current institutional structures – mostly parishes – don’t really address.
“What’s needed for those seeking “new” religious life Cathleen describes is institutional support in the forms of housing, job/service placement, formation and education, etc. Openness to people who are married or dating is essential, as are communal leadership structures that are more democratic/discernment based than hierarchical. ”
Yes; although institutional support isn’t always the first step. Istm that in a number of cases, religious orders were started when a saint with a vision and fire started a ministry; others were attracted to it; they began to live in community; and benefactors stepped forward to support it. It would be after these foundational elements were already in place that the bishop and/or Rome would be approached for recognition.
Excellent personal experience and witness about this topic: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11905
Thanks, Bill.
Having known and continuing to contribute to the wonderful NY Ursulines, I think how much better would funds be spent on them and those like them than the money USCCB will apparently pour into the “investigation.”
I have a lot of questions and doubts about the visitation, but for now I’ll just relate that today, October 2nd, is my great-aunt Sister Basil’s 103rd birthday. She shares her birthday with my mother, who passed away two years ago, and Mohandas Gandhi. Good company, I’d say. Sister Basil had two sisters who also became nuns. Sisters De Neri and Agnes Teresa passed away in their mid 90′s. Among them, they gave or have given approximately 220 years of service to the Church and society in genera,l as educators, health care administrators, and ministers to the poor. All three were whirlwinds of activity in their prime. Never preachy, their quiet faith, wonderful senses of humor, and steadfast example have been very influential in our very large extended family.
I doubt the three sister Sisters need anyone’s prayers personally–they’ve been on the fast track to heaven their whole lives–but I’m sure they would appreciate a few words of prayer for all of the Church’s women religious.
AMEN – well said, Bill! God speed!
I am about half way through this series and have found it quite enlightening on the topic currently under discussion:
http://store.nowyouknowmedia.com/history-women.html
The Sisters should be consulted in some general think-in about what to do to get the Church back into a functioning mode again. The primary responsibility for decline and crisis, apart from social forces beyond our control, must lie with the Vatican. http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2009/09/youve-got-to-be-kidding-me.html
Joseph O’Leary, thank you for posting the link to the photo of this Prince of the Church.
He looks like the proverbial “Dragster Extraordinaire.”
What does it say about the dysfunctional conditions at the Vatican when some people positively gravitate to this kind of ecclesiastical finery/crap?
When I saw this photo, I instinctively asked myself, “Where is Jesus in this picture???”
(ANSWER: He ain’t.)
I’m not sure choice of vestments is really the place to focus any critique of the hierarchy. At the very least we can do better than calling it “drag,” can’t we?
It’s probably a stretch to make a big deal out of ecclesial finery, especially among the hierarchy.
We are discussing, however, should USCCB pony up a lot of shekels for the “visitation” of our good nuns.
I always thought that bosses in government who were much taken with their perks and appearances were probably too focused on themselves.
And, more so, in our Church, where the hierrachs are supposed to representChrist (truth from the beginning?) Who stressed taking the lowest place (something many religious women seem to follow!)
And it may be kind of snarky to bring in the “drag” notion, though, as I remember. Cardinal Rohde was a great buddy of the late Fr, Maciel.
There are times I think our breloved Commonweal contributors may know but insufficiently appreciate the anger that Church leadership generates in some who post here acerbically, say in the hierachy’s/Vatican’s treatment of our good religious women or their defense of the Vatican against the UN Human Rights Commission.
The idea that the ecclesiastical faux finery, frippery and frou-frou common to the likes of Burke, Pell, Rode, et al can in any way, shape or form symbolize Christ to the world is totally beyond me. This form of costumery reeks of an idea of regality that is linked to the, again, faux idea of being a Prince of the Church.
It is the very apparent attitude behind the attire that merits the use of the term “drag.”
(In my world, these men would not be eligible for the term Prince so much as the more appropriate Dowager.”
For those who ignore (at their own peril) this publication …..
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11905
Tried to post that link to the picture of Rode earlier but it was considered “ad hominem”….??? Two thoughts:
- “lex orandi, lex credendi” ……this photo actually says a great deal about how a particular individual prays, leads worship, etc. and illustrates his ecclesilogy. Need anything else be said?
- a picture is worth a thousand words.
Again, embarrassed that a former Vincentian would wear such garb….what would Vincent dePaul say who is buried in a threadbare cassock because he felt is more than adequate for his needs.
And on the Feast of St. Francis (picture him in rags meeting the Sultan or the Pope) does one appreciate even more the importanc eof humility and service of our good nuns under investigation?
Yes, I can’t say I thought the photo is ad hominem–after all, no one bopped him over the head and dressed him up against his will. But perhaps a couple well-advertised yard sales, and Rode might be able to fund his own investigation. Certainly, though, the Vatican folks in general do seem to have an inordinate concern with their wardrobes. Viz. the Pope’s million-dollar new vestments, modeled after (if I remember correctly,) those of an infamous Reformation-era pope. Surely JPII left SOMETHING in the clothes closet that’d work for Benedict with some re-hemming, etc. But of course I’m an academic, therefore one of a group rarely notable for our sartorial taste. Hmmm…a yard sale of JPII’s old clothes might also fund the investigation. Or they could just focus on clothes, and forget the investigation.
“I’m not sure choice of vestments is really the place to focus any critique of the hierarchy.”
Mollie, vestments may not be the place to “focus,” but they are certainly a very good cultural artifact to include in our critique of the hierarchy. They can be a good place to begin a cultural analysis of an institution — whether it be the former IBM or the Church of Rome. As Mr. DeHaas has noted, vestments say a great deal about one’s ecclesiology, which would include, I suggest, one’s understanding of one’s own as well as others’ place in the church’s “pecking order.” (On this point, I recommend Edgar Schein’s very nice and compact work on organizational culture, the study of which is part of my own professional background.)
As for my reference to His Excellency dressing in drag, I must admit I drew my influence from Jimmly Mac :)
…er, Jimmy Mac.
(So much for working w/o my reading glasses.)
If there’s a thread about liturgical vestments, I’m sure there will be lots to discuss. But if we’re questioning the decisions, priorities, etc. of a given prelate, I think it’s best to avoid criticism that boils down to “Look what he wears!”
Mollie – would agree but also; please note that one of the “striking” differences that some choose to highlight between traditional nuns and Vatican II sisters is whether they choose to wear habits or not……does that really tell us anything about the spirituality, the charish, the works, etc. of either group?
Just a minor point. Guess it depends upon which group is doing the highlighting.
Far be it from me to remind one of the church’s Grand Poobahs of sacred scripture — but trust me, I will:
“So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” Matthew 6:27-29