Like a recurring nightmare, sex abuse by some priests is again in the news.
What seems to have been the index finger to the lips, the ‘don’t tell’ attitude of the bishops and, heaven help us, the Pope, is getting wide media coverage. That has the unfortunate effect of exaggerating the extent of the despicable behavior of a few priests. Simply put, it sounds like the Catholic Church is filled with pedophile priests. Not true. Not fair. It’s as if some critics are lying in wait to attack the Catholic Church.
The good news is that the bishops have long been aware of the abuse of some priests. Eight years ago, they examined the problem and have since been dealing with it. The bad news is that there was a problem in the first place.
In 2002, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for a thorough study for the years 1950-2002. Their findings were sad and shocking: a total of 4,132 priests of the 109,000 priests who were active during that 52 year period were accused of sex abuse with minors. Although the total represented, roughly, only 4%, even one priest accused should stagger the mind http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/PriestAbuseScandal.htm
Why did the Catholic Church tolerate this depravity in the holy priesthood for so long? Well, I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like the church hierarchy too often considered the abuse as only a sin not also as a crime. And, although some priests were reported to authorities, a few imprisoned, some ‘laicized’ (de-frocked), some sent to rehab and some, strangely, transferred, apparently, mostly, the molesting was considered as committed by ‘one of us’, a parochial attitude that ‘we will deal with it.’ Colossal error.
The Pope, however, is getting unjustly criticized In the one case in Munich, an accused priest was transferred without the knowledge of Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope).In Milwaukee, in an awful case of 200 deaf children being molested, civil authorities were unable to prosecute the accused priest and dropped the charges. Someone from the Vatican- not the Pope-recommended the trial be canceled because the priest was gravelly ill. (He died weeks later).
The disturbing fact remains, however, that two priests committed the dreadful sin of molestation. No excuse. None. Shame on them.
There are those who feel that the Catholic rule of celibacy is the reason for these priests’ sins and they should be allowed to marry. Nonsense. These transgressions were not acts of philandering, but were acts of pedophilia, a recognized mental disorder that is often found among married men. Allowing priests to marry is not the solution. Making sure these pedophiles are never ordained is the only solution.
Having studied for the Catholic priesthood a very long time ago, I believe, however, the rule of celibacy is more than just a rule. It is the price of admission to that life of unparalleled happiness. It is a magnificent sacrifice for the special “calling” for which few are “chosen”. Trust me. Been there and couldn’t quite do that.
For me, then, as a Catholic, these are troubling times. The sins of these priests are disgusting and disappointing, not to mention destructive of innocent lives. Compounding the mess, the apparent failure of the bishops always to report these crimes was disgraceful.
While all of this is disheartening, the Catholic Church will certainly weather this storm. After telling Peter that he was “the rock” upon which “I will build my church”, Christ then said, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
Not even the sins of some of her priests.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Sins of the Rich and Famous
Mea culpa, mea culpa.
We are living in a time of public apologies for everything from an actor's drunken racist remark to a traffic cop to admission by a baseball player that he used steroids. My concern here is with public confession of marital infidelity. Big difference.
A little more than twenty years ago, televangelists Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert tearfully begged for forgiveness after revelations of their sexual scandals. In the past few years, we have heard painful, public confessions mostly from politicians but recently from pro golfer Tiger Woods. Honestly, I’m getting weary of listening to “ I am so sorry ” soliloquies about sexual dalliances, these embarrassing confessions of sins by the rich and famous.
Strictly speaking, there should be no public confession since it’s really none of our business. And, while there might have been a private confession with family and clergy, I found it bothersome that, in all these public mea culpas, they never admitted that their behavior was a sin.
Whoa. Sin? I’m kidding, right? No, I’m not.
All Christian faiths have teachings on sin. Catholicism offers this explanation: “To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to Him” (Catechism Catholic Church)
Christians believe that God made us in His image to enjoy the world He had created. Our very first parents disobeyed God’s command and chose to eat an apple because Satan, the fallen angel, said it would make them God-like. That was the first or original sin. Simple, yet horrifying: an offense against God.
It amazes me how often we see celebrities raise their eyes to heaven and thank God, their “Lord and savior, Jesus Christ”, whenever receiving awards or how often we watch as athletes point to heaven whenever a touchdown is scored or a home run is hit. Yet, we never see or hear a politician or professional athlete point to heaven and apologize or express regret for breaking one of God’s commandments.
While we recognize that our behavior is sometimes socially unacceptable, Christians seem to shy away from labeling it as sinful. (In due respect, Tiger did, however, express regret that he had drifted away from the teachings of his Buddhist faith.)
OK. Maybe it’s hopelessly naïve to suggest that these confessions by Christians, couched in apologetic language, should indicate there were sins committed but, that’s what these transgressions were. Forgive me, but, I think we have lost our way, probably because it’s no longer the ‘straight and narrow’.
The good news is that the rich and famous are confessing their sins.
The best news is that God forgives us of our sins when we repent. What better time than Lent to reflect not only on our sins but on the act of supreme love that Christ showed by His passion and death to redeem, to pay for all our sins.
The Catholic prayer in confession is really worth repeating:
“O, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee. I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all, because I have offended Thee, my God who are all good and worthy of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, do penance and amend my life.”
In this “one nation under God”, that trusts in God, swears by God, we apparently cannot say that we have offended God
We are living in a time of public apologies for everything from an actor's drunken racist remark to a traffic cop to admission by a baseball player that he used steroids. My concern here is with public confession of marital infidelity. Big difference.
A little more than twenty years ago, televangelists Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert tearfully begged for forgiveness after revelations of their sexual scandals. In the past few years, we have heard painful, public confessions mostly from politicians but recently from pro golfer Tiger Woods. Honestly, I’m getting weary of listening to “ I am so sorry ” soliloquies about sexual dalliances, these embarrassing confessions of sins by the rich and famous.
Strictly speaking, there should be no public confession since it’s really none of our business. And, while there might have been a private confession with family and clergy, I found it bothersome that, in all these public mea culpas, they never admitted that their behavior was a sin.
Whoa. Sin? I’m kidding, right? No, I’m not.
All Christian faiths have teachings on sin. Catholicism offers this explanation: “To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to Him” (Catechism Catholic Church)
Christians believe that God made us in His image to enjoy the world He had created. Our very first parents disobeyed God’s command and chose to eat an apple because Satan, the fallen angel, said it would make them God-like. That was the first or original sin. Simple, yet horrifying: an offense against God.
It amazes me how often we see celebrities raise their eyes to heaven and thank God, their “Lord and savior, Jesus Christ”, whenever receiving awards or how often we watch as athletes point to heaven whenever a touchdown is scored or a home run is hit. Yet, we never see or hear a politician or professional athlete point to heaven and apologize or express regret for breaking one of God’s commandments.
While we recognize that our behavior is sometimes socially unacceptable, Christians seem to shy away from labeling it as sinful. (In due respect, Tiger did, however, express regret that he had drifted away from the teachings of his Buddhist faith.)
OK. Maybe it’s hopelessly naïve to suggest that these confessions by Christians, couched in apologetic language, should indicate there were sins committed but, that’s what these transgressions were. Forgive me, but, I think we have lost our way, probably because it’s no longer the ‘straight and narrow’.
The good news is that the rich and famous are confessing their sins.
The best news is that God forgives us of our sins when we repent. What better time than Lent to reflect not only on our sins but on the act of supreme love that Christ showed by His passion and death to redeem, to pay for all our sins.
The Catholic prayer in confession is really worth repeating:
“O, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee. I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all, because I have offended Thee, my God who are all good and worthy of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, do penance and amend my life.”
In this “one nation under God”, that trusts in God, swears by God, we apparently cannot say that we have offended God
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Heart and Mind of Love
This is the month when we celebrate the feast of Saint Valentine, who undoubtedly was the reason for our custom of exchanging love letters and gifts on February 14. Last year, writing about the origin of Valentine’s Day, I tried to define love but, not surprisingly, was unsuccessful since it is really indefinable.
Let’s look, then, at love from other angles:
According to studies, at last count, there are 665 songs with ‘love’ in the title. How many songs are about love, God only knows..
Famous quotes about love are endless, but here’s a sample:
“For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.” ….(from “My Love Is Lost “ by Judy Garland, who wrote beautiful poetry )
“There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.”…..Frederick Nietzsche
“I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.” ….Mother Teresa
That eclectic group shows how universal the emotion of love really is. Ah, it’s an emotion, isn’t it? It has always fascinated me that love is associated with the heart, yet, as an emotion, it is a brain activity. Now there’s an angle worth investigating.
Some people, by the way, have difficulty believing that our individual, tangible brain controls emotions that many consider to be intangible, such as being in love. However, studies have shown that in the case of love, brain does equal behavior.
In the interesting report, “ Neurobiology of Falling in Love”, the author wrote, “Researchers think that falling in love is a basic emotion like anxiety or fear. When falling in love, the same brain structures as in anxiety are stimulated: the amygdala and related circuits and neuro transmitters. Human beings are anxious until the bond with the loved one is accomplished. Anxiety is than replaced by positive feelings of stability and pleasure. The euphoria and focused attention when falling in love is explained by involvement of the reward and motivation systems in the human brain.”. (http://www.shockmd.com/2009/04/03/the-neurobiology-of-falling-in-love/ )
OK. Is love, then, just a function of our brains? Hard to say, but probably so. Although this does not rule out other areas that many believe play a role in love, the brain does play a vital, if not ultimate role in all aspects of love.
So much for romantic love.
This is also the month when we observe Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, the prayerful and penitential journey that ends with the greatest act of another kind of love. Christ suffered and died so that our sins would be forgiven.
(“No greater love hath man than he lay down his life for his friends”- John 15:13) That’s love above and beyond romantic love.
As I wrote last year, Christ chose love as the mark to identify His disciples. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13: 31-35)How wonderful that loving one another is the mark of a Christian.
As we celebrate these feasts this month, perhaps some will find that person of their dreams, their soul mates, their special romantic love while others may share love already found. But, all of us need not look anywhere but within ourselves to find the love that Christ has already given us and commanded us to share.
So, here’s to love of every kind. As the song says, “All you need is love….love is all you need…”
Let’s look, then, at love from other angles:
According to studies, at last count, there are 665 songs with ‘love’ in the title. How many songs are about love, God only knows..
Famous quotes about love are endless, but here’s a sample:
“For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.” ….(from “My Love Is Lost “ by Judy Garland, who wrote beautiful poetry )
“There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.”…..Frederick Nietzsche
“I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.” ….Mother Teresa
That eclectic group shows how universal the emotion of love really is. Ah, it’s an emotion, isn’t it? It has always fascinated me that love is associated with the heart, yet, as an emotion, it is a brain activity. Now there’s an angle worth investigating.
Some people, by the way, have difficulty believing that our individual, tangible brain controls emotions that many consider to be intangible, such as being in love. However, studies have shown that in the case of love, brain does equal behavior.
In the interesting report, “ Neurobiology of Falling in Love”, the author wrote, “Researchers think that falling in love is a basic emotion like anxiety or fear. When falling in love, the same brain structures as in anxiety are stimulated: the amygdala and related circuits and neuro transmitters. Human beings are anxious until the bond with the loved one is accomplished. Anxiety is than replaced by positive feelings of stability and pleasure. The euphoria and focused attention when falling in love is explained by involvement of the reward and motivation systems in the human brain.”. (http://www.shockmd.com/2009/04/03/the-neurobiology-of-falling-in-love/ )
OK. Is love, then, just a function of our brains? Hard to say, but probably so. Although this does not rule out other areas that many believe play a role in love, the brain does play a vital, if not ultimate role in all aspects of love.
So much for romantic love.
This is also the month when we observe Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, the prayerful and penitential journey that ends with the greatest act of another kind of love. Christ suffered and died so that our sins would be forgiven.
(“No greater love hath man than he lay down his life for his friends”- John 15:13) That’s love above and beyond romantic love.
As I wrote last year, Christ chose love as the mark to identify His disciples. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13: 31-35)How wonderful that loving one another is the mark of a Christian.
As we celebrate these feasts this month, perhaps some will find that person of their dreams, their soul mates, their special romantic love while others may share love already found. But, all of us need not look anywhere but within ourselves to find the love that Christ has already given us and commanded us to share.
So, here’s to love of every kind. As the song says, “All you need is love….love is all you need…”
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Promises, Promises
By now, many of you have probably started smoking again, given up on your diet and worst of all, stopped going to church. Ah, broken New Year’s resolutions.
The Romans named the first month of the year after Janus, the god of beginnings and the guardian of doors and entrances. Depicted with two faces, one on the front of his head and one on the back, he could look backward and forward at the same time. At
In the Middle Ages, Christians changed New Year's Day to December 25, the birth of Jesus. Then they changed it to March 25, a holiday called the Annunciation. In the sixteenth century, Pope Gregory XIII revised the Julian calendar, and the celebration of the New Year was returned to January 1. (http://www.goalsguy.com/Events/n_facts.html)
OK. Breaking bad habits is one thing, but why not begin again a good habit that, for whatever reason, you stopped. Gym? Daily walks? Being nice? (Am I’m getting warm? ) Praying? Attending church? Ah, yes. In many ways, going back to church is more difficult than staying away from cigarettes and too much food. (Doing ‘bad’ is always easier than doing ‘good’. Ever notice that?)
It’s not the end of the world if you’ve broken your promises to yourselves, your resolutions, to stop smoking or overeating. But, it could be the end of your future world, figuratively speaking, of course, if you stopped praying and/or going to church.
The condition of our soul is infinitely more important than the condition of our body. That’s not to say that we should be careless with our physical well being, but that we should be just as careful with the condition of our souls.
So, if you have returned to the gym, started your diet or thrown away your cigarettes, your physical body will be grateful. But, if you’ve returned to church, the gym for your spiritual body, if you will, and begun to pray again, your soul will be eternally grateful.
Eternally.
Happy New Year.
Until next time....
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Waiting In Joyful Hope
And, somewhere in this country, every 26 seconds of every minute of every hour of every day, that choice is made. It staggers the mind to think that 1.2 million little lives are savagely ended in the womb every year. Incredibly, 70% of these women who make this awful choice are Christian. ( Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives.)
Why? Why do they choose not to wait? Well, 93% of these women make that terrible choice because the child is not wanted or will be an inconvenience! And, 47% of all those women have made that choice before! Disturbing statistics.
Preaching that life is sacred is the moral coloring, if you will, that we give to the black and white act of taking a life. Often, that message doesn’t register because many of those who make that choice to end a life do not believe the fetus is alive. Ah, there’s the rub. For them, to end a pregnancy is simply to remove “a bunch of tissue” or “some blob of matter”, as some practitioners of this procedure have been quoted as saying. They no doubt have forgotten or chose to forget what they learned in Biology 101.
How could they forget that human development begins with fertilization, the process in which the male sperm fuses with the female egg to produce the single cell, the very beginning of medical pregnancy, the very beginning of their child? Did they not remember that this single cell divides and divides again in an orderly way as it travels down the Fallopian tube to find the place on the uterus wall where it will continue to grow and from whence it will be taken to the outside world?
Before the first month ends, the heart in that child-in-the-making begins a lifetime of beating. Before the second month ends, brainwaves are detected in this wonder of creation. By the end of the third month, all the organs and systems of this child, now called fetus, are developed and functioning. This is not religious dogma, but scientific fact.( Alabama Physicians for Life) ,
How did this happen? How did we get to this place where a woman was given the right to end a life? Blame it on the Supreme Court that made a sad and strange ruling in 1973 that the only time of pregnancy when a woman had that right with no restriction was in the first three months. The first three months!
And so, we wait. Advent is that time of great expectation. Soon Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be born. Let’s not forget that Mary carried Him in her womb for the whole nine months.
My prayer during this holy and happy season is that women who are thinking about making that cruel choice will not. May God inspire them to wait with joyful hope for the coming of their child.
Joy to the world! The Lord is come. Let earth receive her King. Let every heart make room.
Every heart. Especially those that have just started beating.
Have a joyous Christmas.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Getting Away With Murder
“Off with his head!”
Like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, that’s what we should be shouting when we execute criminals in America. Derived from the Latin, capitalis, “ regarding the head ”, the death penalty is capital punishment and was originally a severing of the head.
According to Amnesty International, as of December 2008, more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Much to my unhappy surprise, Christians are divided on the death penalty. Some quote Leviticus 24: 17-22 “ And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death”, while others quote Exodus 20: 13 “ Thou shalt not kill”. In this country, we favor Leviticus and kill those convicted of killing others. Methinks we’re getting away with murder.
The recent execution of Max Payne ( the 6th execution in the first 10 months of 2009 in Alabama!), reminded me how we trifle with human life in this country. We discard embryos we don’t need and destroy unborn children we don’t want.
The heinous nature of Mr. Payne’s crime was undoubtedly the reason the penalty was carried out. But, none of us gave him life, so none of us is allowed to take it away. Christians, of all people, should know that.
It was arrogant of us, in fact, to award ourselves this divine ability by attaching it as punishment for the violation of a law. Our desire to avenge a murder blinds us to the realization that we are not the givers of life. Execution is not punishment, it would seem, but revenge. And we all know what Christ said about revenge.
There has been some discussion, however, about ending the death penalty. In recent years the Supreme Court has voted to forbid the execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded, and it banned using the death penalty for crimes that did not involve killings. But, to my mind, that’s no different than the Nazis choosing who would go to the gas chambers and who would not. We still put people to death.
I’m no constitutional scholar, but, in my view, the Eighth Amendment implicitly forbids the death penalty.
Consider it was written by men who fled a country where punishments, such as public whipping or exposure in the stocks, were designed largely to shame the offender, and where the only death penalty was the brutal and also shameful hanging. Presumably, they wanted no more whippings, stocks or hangings in their new life and is probably what they had in mind when they wrote “cruel and unusual”.
The tone of the 8th Amendment, I feel, is concern for the convicted. Go easy on the bail and fines and, for heaven’s sake, don’t torture.That being the case, why would they want death as punishment?
OK. It’s the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. How then, you may ask, can the state maintain peace and order in society unless it rids us of those who commit awful crimes? Well, the punishment handed down for crime should restore that peace and order. Catholic teaching is clear on this issue and makes perfect sense: if there are non-lethal means sufficient to defend and protect the public while punishing for the crime, the state should limit itself to such means (such as life without parole). In that way, we are also respecting the dignity of the person who committed the crime.
God made man in His image and that is why life is sacred, whether it’s microscopic, cradled in a womb or spent making bad choices.
It troubles me that not much has changed since the days, 2,000 years ago, when people screamed, “ Crucify Him, crucify Him.”
Till next time...
Like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, that’s what we should be shouting when we execute criminals in America. Derived from the Latin, capitalis, “ regarding the head ”, the death penalty is capital punishment and was originally a severing of the head.
According to Amnesty International, as of December 2008, more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Much to my unhappy surprise, Christians are divided on the death penalty. Some quote Leviticus 24: 17-22 “ And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death”, while others quote Exodus 20: 13 “ Thou shalt not kill”. In this country, we favor Leviticus and kill those convicted of killing others. Methinks we’re getting away with murder.
The recent execution of Max Payne ( the 6th execution in the first 10 months of 2009 in Alabama!), reminded me how we trifle with human life in this country. We discard embryos we don’t need and destroy unborn children we don’t want.
The heinous nature of Mr. Payne’s crime was undoubtedly the reason the penalty was carried out. But, none of us gave him life, so none of us is allowed to take it away. Christians, of all people, should know that.
It was arrogant of us, in fact, to award ourselves this divine ability by attaching it as punishment for the violation of a law. Our desire to avenge a murder blinds us to the realization that we are not the givers of life. Execution is not punishment, it would seem, but revenge. And we all know what Christ said about revenge.
There has been some discussion, however, about ending the death penalty. In recent years the Supreme Court has voted to forbid the execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded, and it banned using the death penalty for crimes that did not involve killings. But, to my mind, that’s no different than the Nazis choosing who would go to the gas chambers and who would not. We still put people to death.
I’m no constitutional scholar, but, in my view, the Eighth Amendment implicitly forbids the death penalty.
Consider it was written by men who fled a country where punishments, such as public whipping or exposure in the stocks, were designed largely to shame the offender, and where the only death penalty was the brutal and also shameful hanging. Presumably, they wanted no more whippings, stocks or hangings in their new life and is probably what they had in mind when they wrote “cruel and unusual”.
The tone of the 8th Amendment, I feel, is concern for the convicted. Go easy on the bail and fines and, for heaven’s sake, don’t torture.That being the case, why would they want death as punishment?
OK. It’s the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. How then, you may ask, can the state maintain peace and order in society unless it rids us of those who commit awful crimes? Well, the punishment handed down for crime should restore that peace and order. Catholic teaching is clear on this issue and makes perfect sense: if there are non-lethal means sufficient to defend and protect the public while punishing for the crime, the state should limit itself to such means (such as life without parole). In that way, we are also respecting the dignity of the person who committed the crime.
God made man in His image and that is why life is sacred, whether it’s microscopic, cradled in a womb or spent making bad choices.
It troubles me that not much has changed since the days, 2,000 years ago, when people screamed, “ Crucify Him, crucify Him.”
Till next time...
Monday, October 26, 2009
Kicking The Habit
From the clothing seen in an eleventh century monastery to the clothing worn by nuns on picket lines in the 1960’s, “habits” have always been designed and worn for a reason. Benedictines and Dominicans, for example, were clothed in outfits that were specifically created to identify women who had consecrated their lives to God. Many other orders of nuns wore habits that reflected their desire to blend in among the people they served. The understated habits of Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity that resembled the uniform of nurses comes to mind. When many religious abandoned their habits in the 60’s and 70’s, it stirred a debate that continues today.
Does it ever. If I live to be 100, I will never understand why some orders of nuns decided to begin to dress like laywomen. It was almost as if they were ashamed to be identified as nuns. Their reasons given for this radical change pale in comparison to why they should dress like religious. There is no plausible explanation for this sudden desire to appear as lay women. None. Oh, the reasons given for the big switch ranged from “ the habits were bulky, hot and uncomfortable” to “ lay clothes are donated or bought at thrift shops and are cheaper than habits”.
This is simple. Those excuses are secondary to the primary reason nuns wear and should wear clerical garb: they are clerics of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, they should be proud to display to the world that they have given up their lives to Christ. Dressing in mufti, as it were, tells those who know they’re nuns that they gave up their lives to Christ, but they not only want to be comfortable, but also do not want everyone knowing it. Disgraceful.
Once some of these nuns began dressing like laity, it was a foregone conclusion they would soon act like laity, albeit faithful to their vow of chastity. The parochial school system of the Church was the first to feel it. Little by little, the “ sisters”, those who were our teachers, were out of the convents and living on their own. Whereas they were receiving stipends because they had taken a vow of poverty, their replacements in the schools were laity and had to be paid living wages. That was the fundamental reason for the economic problems that suddenly faced the Catholic school system. The rest, as they say, is history. The wonderful nuns who taught me in grade school, were disappearing. And, for the most part, they are gone.
It is interesting and significant to note that, over the past 30 years, the number of women in Catholic religious orders has decreased by a reported 50%. There are now approximately, only 85,412 religious sisters in the United States and their average age is 68.
The good news is that the religious orders that are actually seeing growth are the ones that wear the traditional habit including the Dominicans and Mother Teresa’s religious order.
It is widely held that Vatican II said that nuns should take the habit off in favor of secular clothes. Surprisingly, not true (See below). Nowhere in the Council documents does it say that the priests and religious should dispense with religious habits, and it never said that habits should be the street clothes of the common man. Vatican II stated that habits are to be an outward sign of consecration. They need to be simple, modest, poor, becoming, and needed to be changed if they were unhealthy or not suited for today's needs. Maybe that was the “opt-out” wording seized upon by some nuns.
This is not a new idea. Religious habits have changed throughout history, but for obvious reasons priests and nuns wearing secular apparel from a department store does not fit the bill. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II both have told priests and religious that they must wear their religious habit, but many have chosen to ignore the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council.
Certainly, the gradual disappearance of habits of some nuns does not change any fundamental doctrine of the church. But, how are we, as Christians, to transform the world for Christ if some religious are in disguise?
And, what are we to make of the disappearance of the habit causing the disappearance of “role models” for young women considering the religious life? There are some women who just naturally draw young people to them whether wearing a habit or not. But, as some young women have been reported to have said, “ wearing civilian clothes makes them just ‘one of the bunch’. Traditional garb is special (maybe not the most comfortable) and attracts even the youngest to these traditional women.”
The document, “ Perfectae Caritatis” , proclaimed by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965, spends a long time laying out the parameters of the discussion, but eventually reaches some very important conclusions.
Section #17 ( of the 25) is spot on:
17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed. (Editor's note: notice here that the idea of abandoning the habit altogether is not even considered)
One final note: Canon 669,1 in Code of Canon Law states: Religious are to wear the habit of the institute determined according to the norm of proper law as a sign of their consecration and as a testimony of poverty.
As a sign of their consecration. Wonderful.
Till next time.....
Does it ever. If I live to be 100, I will never understand why some orders of nuns decided to begin to dress like laywomen. It was almost as if they were ashamed to be identified as nuns. Their reasons given for this radical change pale in comparison to why they should dress like religious. There is no plausible explanation for this sudden desire to appear as lay women. None. Oh, the reasons given for the big switch ranged from “ the habits were bulky, hot and uncomfortable” to “ lay clothes are donated or bought at thrift shops and are cheaper than habits”.
This is simple. Those excuses are secondary to the primary reason nuns wear and should wear clerical garb: they are clerics of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, they should be proud to display to the world that they have given up their lives to Christ. Dressing in mufti, as it were, tells those who know they’re nuns that they gave up their lives to Christ, but they not only want to be comfortable, but also do not want everyone knowing it. Disgraceful.
Once some of these nuns began dressing like laity, it was a foregone conclusion they would soon act like laity, albeit faithful to their vow of chastity. The parochial school system of the Church was the first to feel it. Little by little, the “ sisters”, those who were our teachers, were out of the convents and living on their own. Whereas they were receiving stipends because they had taken a vow of poverty, their replacements in the schools were laity and had to be paid living wages. That was the fundamental reason for the economic problems that suddenly faced the Catholic school system. The rest, as they say, is history. The wonderful nuns who taught me in grade school, were disappearing. And, for the most part, they are gone.
It is interesting and significant to note that, over the past 30 years, the number of women in Catholic religious orders has decreased by a reported 50%. There are now approximately, only 85,412 religious sisters in the United States and their average age is 68.
The good news is that the religious orders that are actually seeing growth are the ones that wear the traditional habit including the Dominicans and Mother Teresa’s religious order.
It is widely held that Vatican II said that nuns should take the habit off in favor of secular clothes. Surprisingly, not true (See below). Nowhere in the Council documents does it say that the priests and religious should dispense with religious habits, and it never said that habits should be the street clothes of the common man. Vatican II stated that habits are to be an outward sign of consecration. They need to be simple, modest, poor, becoming, and needed to be changed if they were unhealthy or not suited for today's needs. Maybe that was the “opt-out” wording seized upon by some nuns.
This is not a new idea. Religious habits have changed throughout history, but for obvious reasons priests and nuns wearing secular apparel from a department store does not fit the bill. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II both have told priests and religious that they must wear their religious habit, but many have chosen to ignore the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council.
Certainly, the gradual disappearance of habits of some nuns does not change any fundamental doctrine of the church. But, how are we, as Christians, to transform the world for Christ if some religious are in disguise?
And, what are we to make of the disappearance of the habit causing the disappearance of “role models” for young women considering the religious life? There are some women who just naturally draw young people to them whether wearing a habit or not. But, as some young women have been reported to have said, “ wearing civilian clothes makes them just ‘one of the bunch’. Traditional garb is special (maybe not the most comfortable) and attracts even the youngest to these traditional women.”
The document, “ Perfectae Caritatis” , proclaimed by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965, spends a long time laying out the parameters of the discussion, but eventually reaches some very important conclusions.
Section #17 ( of the 25) is spot on:
17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed. (Editor's note: notice here that the idea of abandoning the habit altogether is not even considered)
One final note: Canon 669,1 in Code of Canon Law states: Religious are to wear the habit of the institute determined according to the norm of proper law as a sign of their consecration and as a testimony of poverty.
As a sign of their consecration. Wonderful.
Till next time.....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
