The constitutions of the Company of St Ursula, the Secular Institute of St Angela Merici, necessarily adhere to the principles articulated in Canon Law for Institutes of Consecrated Life. Hence a woman wishing to become a member of the Secular Institute of St Angela Merici, will follow a path similar to that for joining other Institutes of Consecrated Life.
For the Secular Institutes of St Angela Merici, the Initial Journey has two phases, the first phase being a period of vocational orientation or friendship. There is no set time frame for this period. Following this period of vocational orientation, the person may formally request to be admitted to the second phase of this initial journey. This second phase is a two year period during which the person undertakes "to study in depth the identity of secular consecration", the spirit of the Foundress, to verify her own vocation, and to experience the form of life that is to be undertaken. At the end of this two year period, the person may request to be admitted to temporary profession. Final vows may be taken after five years of temporary vows.
Because this vocation is a secular vocation, none of the above requires a person to move from where they are living or to resign from their current employment. This formation period is undertaken concurrently with normal life, as this is the manner in which the vocation is lived out. It does require a commitment to developing a deep prayer life, and to finding time for regular dialogue. It also demands a maturity, independence and strength of commitment to assume personal responsibility for developing her understanding of this vocation and commitment to it. While dialogue supports it, the day to day living of this vocation is an independent one, demanding a firm and courageous commitment.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Charism and the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart
In the school where I work, I have been part of a formation committee, whose task was to attempt to articulate an understanding of Ursuline charism contained within the school motto of Serviam; and then to develop a formation program to ensure the ongoing faithfulness to and formation in the charism as the school community changes over the years. However, very early in the process it became necessary to even develop a common understanding of the word "charism" itself. Eventually the committee favoured an understanding of charism as a "window onto the Gospel". In pondering the readings for today's solemnity, it seemed to me that the underpinning reality being celebrated today is that window - a window through which the Merician charism comes face to face with the Gospel.
Culturally the celebration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus raises to mind pictorial images, not necessarily artistic images, perhaps more reminiscent of a day when catechetics was delivered predominantly by pictures. The perpetration of this pictorial image does not help to invite the current generation to ponder the richness of the reality being celebrated. Remarkably, the readings for the day revolve around the image of the shepherd - the shepherd who looks after the sheep, the tenderness of the shepherd, the shepherd who will not let even a single one of the flock be lost, the foolishness of heart that goes after a single lost sheep, the shepherd who knows each one by name, who lays down his life for his sheep. The profundity of such a love is a sacred reality - it breaks all bounds.
But it is the same imagery that St Angela uses when addressing the leaders of the Company of St Ursula and how they should look after the members of the Company. They should be like watchful shepherdesses, not lose one member, and "have them all engraved in your heart, one by one, for this is how real love acts and works." And to the members of the Company, St Angela, encouraged them "to always keep the flame of love burning in their hearts." It is this love that underpinned all of her teachings, the love of the good shepherd. This was her model. This was her key entry point into the Gospels, into her knowing of God.
Culturally the celebration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus raises to mind pictorial images, not necessarily artistic images, perhaps more reminiscent of a day when catechetics was delivered predominantly by pictures. The perpetration of this pictorial image does not help to invite the current generation to ponder the richness of the reality being celebrated. Remarkably, the readings for the day revolve around the image of the shepherd - the shepherd who looks after the sheep, the tenderness of the shepherd, the shepherd who will not let even a single one of the flock be lost, the foolishness of heart that goes after a single lost sheep, the shepherd who knows each one by name, who lays down his life for his sheep. The profundity of such a love is a sacred reality - it breaks all bounds.
But it is the same imagery that St Angela uses when addressing the leaders of the Company of St Ursula and how they should look after the members of the Company. They should be like watchful shepherdesses, not lose one member, and "have them all engraved in your heart, one by one, for this is how real love acts and works." And to the members of the Company, St Angela, encouraged them "to always keep the flame of love burning in their hearts." It is this love that underpinned all of her teachings, the love of the good shepherd. This was her model. This was her key entry point into the Gospels, into her knowing of God.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Religious and Secular Institutes
Sisters, Religious and Secular Institutes
Religious, Secular Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life are addressed in Canon Law in a section headed “Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life”.
Title 1 in the Section on Institutes of Consecrated Life covers: Norms common to ALL Institutes of Consecrated Life (#563 – #602. These norms include:
•Life consecrated through the profession of the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience.
•Neither clerical nor lay
And this sections also recognises hermits and consecrated virgins as forms of Consecrated Life.
Title 2 addresses Religious Institutes and in a separate Title, Title 3, Secular Institutes are addressed. Clearly, Secular Institutes are not a subcategory of religious life. Rather both Religious Institutes and Secular Institutes are distinct ways of living Consecrated Life.
Title 2 on Religious Institutes highlights:
•Religious Institutes are to be distinguished from secular institutes by:
o A common life
o Poverty as dependence
o Withdrawal from the world
Title 3 on Secular Institutes highlights:
•The Secular Institutes are canonically distinguished from religious life as life lived in the world, but not of the world.
•Does not change lay or clerical status.
•The fraternal bonds are of a different ilk - and community life is not necessary.
•Poverty is not one of material dependency.
•The mode of being in the world if of a different character: leaven in society. While a secular institute may have a specific work, this is not necessary.
What is at stake here if these distinctions are not clearly recognised?Apart from women not being given the full information on possible ways to live consecrated life, a disservice is being done to both religious and secular institutes by clouding the distinctive character of each. In the Church's mind, there is a certain "withdrawal FROM the world" that is characteristic of religious institutes whereas for secular institutes the contrary is characteristic - "immesrsion IN the world, although not being of the world."
I suggest there is a two-fold need that will enrich all:
(a) A need for a true appreciation of what a secular institute is intended to be;
(b) A need for a reaffirmation of the innate identity of apostolic religious as distinct from a secular institute.
By this I do not mean that apostolic religious should all get back into convents and live a common order of day. Elements of “common life, poverty as dependence and withdrawal from the world” may continue to be “liberally” interpreted in their practical application. However, they do constitute a fundamental orientation of the heart and mind that needs to be reclaimed and that pertains to the relationship of members with each other and with the world at large, an orientation of heart and mind that is in essence different to that of the consecrated person in a secular institute.
A particular gift to the Church of Apostolic Religious Life has been their prophetic role in leading the response to emerging needs in society. While philantropists may well pick up part of this, there remains the need for a gospel critique in the response. The loss of Apostolic Religious in the Church would be a very sad event. It is a matter of urgency that they reclaim their unique identity, without blurring the unique charism of those called to live consecrated life in a secular institute. Secular Institutes also need to affirm their uniqueness rather than accept a quasi-religious identity.The world needs both.
Religious, Secular Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life are addressed in Canon Law in a section headed “Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life”.
Title 1 in the Section on Institutes of Consecrated Life covers: Norms common to ALL Institutes of Consecrated Life (#563 – #602. These norms include:
•Life consecrated through the profession of the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience.
•Neither clerical nor lay
And this sections also recognises hermits and consecrated virgins as forms of Consecrated Life.
Title 2 addresses Religious Institutes and in a separate Title, Title 3, Secular Institutes are addressed. Clearly, Secular Institutes are not a subcategory of religious life. Rather both Religious Institutes and Secular Institutes are distinct ways of living Consecrated Life.
Title 2 on Religious Institutes highlights:
•Religious Institutes are to be distinguished from secular institutes by:
o A common life
o Poverty as dependence
o Withdrawal from the world
Title 3 on Secular Institutes highlights:
•The Secular Institutes are canonically distinguished from religious life as life lived in the world, but not of the world.
•Does not change lay or clerical status.
•The fraternal bonds are of a different ilk - and community life is not necessary.
•Poverty is not one of material dependency.
•The mode of being in the world if of a different character: leaven in society. While a secular institute may have a specific work, this is not necessary.
What is at stake here if these distinctions are not clearly recognised?Apart from women not being given the full information on possible ways to live consecrated life, a disservice is being done to both religious and secular institutes by clouding the distinctive character of each. In the Church's mind, there is a certain "withdrawal FROM the world" that is characteristic of religious institutes whereas for secular institutes the contrary is characteristic - "immesrsion IN the world, although not being of the world."
I suggest there is a two-fold need that will enrich all:
(a) A need for a true appreciation of what a secular institute is intended to be;
(b) A need for a reaffirmation of the innate identity of apostolic religious as distinct from a secular institute.
By this I do not mean that apostolic religious should all get back into convents and live a common order of day. Elements of “common life, poverty as dependence and withdrawal from the world” may continue to be “liberally” interpreted in their practical application. However, they do constitute a fundamental orientation of the heart and mind that needs to be reclaimed and that pertains to the relationship of members with each other and with the world at large, an orientation of heart and mind that is in essence different to that of the consecrated person in a secular institute.
A particular gift to the Church of Apostolic Religious Life has been their prophetic role in leading the response to emerging needs in society. While philantropists may well pick up part of this, there remains the need for a gospel critique in the response. The loss of Apostolic Religious in the Church would be a very sad event. It is a matter of urgency that they reclaim their unique identity, without blurring the unique charism of those called to live consecrated life in a secular institute. Secular Institutes also need to affirm their uniqueness rather than accept a quasi-religious identity.The world needs both.
The Merician Difference in Education
All Catholic Schools have at their core the living of the Gospel. What distinguishes an Ursuline School?
Traditionally, this difference has been characterized by a particular practice or approach to Pastoral Care. Angela’s approach to Governance resonates strongly with the Gospel of John, chapters 10 and 17. It is a model of governance based on the pastoral image of shepherding – knowing each by name (Jn.10:14), protection (Jn.17:15), unity (Jn.17:11-12).
In the governance of the Company of St Ursula, the role of leaders was to watch over and guard the members of the Company as vigilant shepherds and good servants (Counsels, Prologue, v.6). Members of the Company were to be provided for (Counsels 4:3), defended and protected (Counsels, 7:1) and not one was to be lost (Counsels, 4:6).
This Merician model of pastoral care is a finely nuanced balance between the individual and the common good. The aim of good governance or pastoral care is unity and harmony. This is the common good. The means to this common good is the respect, esteem and dignity of the individual:
“For the more you esteem them, the more you will love them; the more you love them, the more you will care and watch over them. And it will be impossible for you not to cherish them day and night, and to have them all engraved in your heart, one by one, for this is how real love acts and works.” (Counsels, Prologue, vv.10-11).
For Angela, the potential of each one was known only to God. This was the ground for esteem and respect. For the individual, governance was pastoral care and was aimed at encouragement, predominantly through gentleness and kindness, to do one’s best. In the human fulfillment of one’s potential, in a well-grounded esteem and respect of the individual in a climate of love, the common good of harmony and unity would emerge.
Traditionally, this difference has been characterized by a particular practice or approach to Pastoral Care. Angela’s approach to Governance resonates strongly with the Gospel of John, chapters 10 and 17. It is a model of governance based on the pastoral image of shepherding – knowing each by name (Jn.10:14), protection (Jn.17:15), unity (Jn.17:11-12).
In the governance of the Company of St Ursula, the role of leaders was to watch over and guard the members of the Company as vigilant shepherds and good servants (Counsels, Prologue, v.6). Members of the Company were to be provided for (Counsels 4:3), defended and protected (Counsels, 7:1) and not one was to be lost (Counsels, 4:6).
This Merician model of pastoral care is a finely nuanced balance between the individual and the common good. The aim of good governance or pastoral care is unity and harmony. This is the common good. The means to this common good is the respect, esteem and dignity of the individual:
“For the more you esteem them, the more you will love them; the more you love them, the more you will care and watch over them. And it will be impossible for you not to cherish them day and night, and to have them all engraved in your heart, one by one, for this is how real love acts and works.” (Counsels, Prologue, vv.10-11).
For Angela, the potential of each one was known only to God. This was the ground for esteem and respect. For the individual, governance was pastoral care and was aimed at encouragement, predominantly through gentleness and kindness, to do one’s best. In the human fulfillment of one’s potential, in a well-grounded esteem and respect of the individual in a climate of love, the common good of harmony and unity would emerge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)