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.

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.