Not sure how this works

Presbyterian minister to take Benedictine vows.

When Smith makes her vows, she'll keep her role as an ordained Presbyterian minister and add the title of Benedictine sister. This seems fine with the Presbyterians.

The Rev. Barbara Battin, Presbyterian minister from Ohio, will give the homily Saturday, and Rev. Ken Meunier, associate director of the John Knox Presbytery, the governing body of Presbyterian churches in this area, will also speak.

I couldn't reach the pope, but the Rev. Daniel Ward, a canon lawyer, said the pope supports other ecumenical religious communities, such as Taize in France.

"He can't do anything about it, anyway - she's not Catholic," said Ward, a member of the order of Benedict and executive director of the Legal Resources Center for the Religious in Maryland.

Update: Thanks to "b", we have an explanation. Pulled from comments:

I believe the subject community is part of the Federation of St. Gertrude, founded 1937, with houses in the US and Canada. The monastery in Richardton, ND, of which Kathleen Norris is an Oblate is also part of this Federation.

St. Benedict Center was founded intentionally as an ecumenical monastery in the US. From their literature:
---
The Monastery of Saint Benedict Center is home for the community of the Sisters of Saint Benedict of Madison, Wisconsin, and Benedictine Women of Madison, Inc., the first ecumenical monastic community in North America. Hospitality flows through the heart of this community as the sisters share daily common prayer with co-workers and guests; offer personal retreats and spiritual growth programs for women and men of various faith traditions; sustain ecumenical communities of women and men in living Benedictine values in their families and professions; and maintain bonds of friendship with women’s monastic communities in Asia and Africa and welcome these sisters into their community.
---

Regarding new vocations, their website says
---
We celebrate the diversity of our members. Each of us contributes our unique gifts to the shared life of community.

We invite single women of any Christian tradition, 25-50 years old, into our community. Women who join the community do not change their denomination.

Comments

[meep]

Huh?

This makes no sense.

I understand the Presby's not caring, but I don't see how you can take the vows and not be Catholic.

[c matt]

Aren't the Benedictines Catholic?

[Chris]

There are Anglican Benedictines

http://www.osb.org/intl/angl/

[Whitcomb]

How do you write an article like this without talking to someone from the Sisters of St. Benedict? Readers are left hanging after this article.

[Christine]

"Smith said she was attracted to the sacraments and regular prayer of Catholic monastic life, but didn't have a way of living that life within the Protestant tradition. Interestingly, she feels called to a way of life that has become less attractive to Catholic women."

Wasn't it Andrew Greeley who said something to the effect that the minute Catholics throw something away, Protestants discover and embrace it?

[Patrick Rothwell]

"Benedictine spirituality" is one of the latest fads among the movement liberal Protestant clergy and lay activists. I'm not sure what it means other than it sees some commonalities - however slight - between a monastery and a liberal Protestant intentional community and that the monastic structure can somehow be used for their purposes. I don't get it all, really. The lived-in tradition and experience of the Benedictine monastic tradition has very little to do with their world view. They will get bored with "Benedictine spirituality" and go on to the next thing and who knows what that will be.

[David]

So, Protestants becoming Benedictine Oblates isn't a good thing?

Kathleen Norris, writer, Presbyterian, and Benedictine Oblate since 1986, was instrumental in my becoming a Catholic.

Don't underestimate the good that can come out of this sort of thing.

[b]

A few points.
There is really no such thing as a Catholic "Order" of St. Benedict in the sense of the "Order" (top down) of Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc. Benedict lived in the 6th century, monasticism has been in the Church since at least the 4th century. The Benedictine "Order" is a recent development. It was Pope Pius XII that explicitly ordered the formation of the Benedictine Confederation (OSB) of 17 or so independent Catholic Benedictine congregations, each with their own history and traditions and families of monasteries.

There are, of course, Catholic Benedictines outside of the OSB, and there are Anglican Benedictines, as mentioned above. And there are ecumenical monastic communites like Taize. In general, it is not a good idea to assume that "Benedictine" == "Catholic" unless you know more about the community. This confuses the press endlessly.

Who is America's most famous monk? Thomas Merton. But the Cistercians (OCist) and Trappist (OCSO) are not part of the OSB. They continue as separate monastic traditions in the Church.

Who is the most popular lay writer about monasticism in the US? Kathleen Norris, I'd say. She is a Presbyterian (correct me if I'm wrong), and also an Oblate ofthe Catholic Assumption Abbey in North Dakota.

Benedictines, perhaps because of their deep tradition of hospitality, have been tasked by the Church with many work of an ecumenical and inter-religious nature.

[amy]

The article is admittedly unclear, but it indicates that that unlike Norris, Smith is becoming a fully professed member of the community - not an oblate.

Here is a page on being a Benedictine Oblate, which is slightly different than a third order Franciscan, for example, and is open to all:

4) The Oblate should participate frequently in the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation. (If the Oblate is not Roman Catholic, then he or she should be faithful to his or her beliefs concerning church and prayer.

But that's not what Smith is doing, so...just wondering.

[b]

I believe the subject community is part of the Federation of St. Gertrude, founded 1937, with houses in the US and Canada. The monastery in Richardton, ND, of which Kathleen Norris is an Oblate is also part of this Federation.

St. Benedict Center was founded intentionally as an ecumenical monastery in the US. From their literature:
---
The Monastery of Saint Benedict Center is home for the community of the Sisters of Saint Benedict of Madison, Wisconsin, and Benedictine Women of Madison, Inc., the first ecumenical monastic community in North America. Hospitality flows through the heart of this community as the sisters share daily common prayer with co-workers and guests; offer personal retreats and spiritual growth programs for women and men of various faith traditions; sustain ecumenical communities of women and men in living Benedictine values in their families and professions; and maintain bonds of friendship with women’s monastic communities in Asia and Africa and welcome these sisters into their community.
---

Regarding new vocations, their website says
---
We celebrate the diversity of our members. Each of us contributes our unique gifts to the shared life of community.

We invite single women of any Christian tradition, 25-50 years old, into our community. Women who join the community do not change their denomination.
----

That's pretty clear.

[John Heavrin]

I wonder if she'll be able to truly live as a vowed Benedictine, in community, without becoming Roman Catholic. True monastic spirituality is hard for me to conceive separate from the Mass and an active Sacramental life, to say the least. Perhaps the Rev. Abbess could, under vow of Obedience, order her conversion. :)

Of course, the article doesn't clarify whether she's taking full-fledged vows, which probably require one to be a Catholic.

[John Heavrin]

Posted the above before seeing the updates. While I'm still unclear as to the nature of the "vows" to be taken, it sounds like this community is open to all comers, which is fine, I suppose, but the article should have pointed this out, instead of giving the "This just in --Catholic Religious Orders Now Open to Presbyterian Ministers" tone that it did.

I still don't see how one can be a true, full-fledged Benedictine without being Catholic, but I'm sure half a dozen posters will explain it to me.

[b]

Dear John,

May I ask why you feel that true monastic spirituality is hard to conceive of apart from the Mass and an active sacramental life? How many places are the Mass and sacraments mentioned in the Rule of Benedict? How often are they mentioned in the writings of the Desert Fathers?

Throughout the history of the Church, monasticism has engaged and withdrawn, blended and separated out, been ruled a great influence, and a great useless burden in its dance with the Church. I think, however, that perhaps you could say that "Catholic spirituality" is not possible without the Mass and sacraments; perhaps "monastic spirituality" is not possible without the Office, Lectio Divina, silence, contemplation, and most especially the Psalms.

"Monoastic spirituality" is lived quite successfully in non-Catholic, less sacramental communities.

[Christine]

"Monoastic spirituality" is lived quite successfully in non-Catholic, less sacramental communities"

True, but in order to fully profess in a Benedictine Community of the Roman Catholic Church, at some point I would guess one would have to live the sacramental life. Our local Benedictine Abbey is very much centered around the Mass as much as lectio divina. Several priests from the community staff Catholic parishes.

[Carrie]

Well, has anyone noticed St. Benedict statues starting to cry yet?

This is a good example of the sort of confusion that ecumenism/interreligious dialogue is fostering. It's far from the only one, though. When the fruits are judged, hopefully this rotten fruit of confusion will also be considered. At the rate we are going, we will end up with a religious soup no one can recognize anymore.

[Father Wilson]

When you're talking about Benedictine nuns in America, it's important to remember that most of their congregations are a very American phemomenon. German Benedictine monks served as missionaries to German towns from Pennsylvania through the midwest, and appealed to German Abbesses for nuns.

These nuns, who had been monastic and enclosed, came to the USA and discovered that they were expected to found and staff schools for immigrants. They developed from "nuns" to active orders of "sisters" which kept some monastic traditions and language but dropped a great deal (for example, dropping the Divine Ofice for the little office of the BVM).

Dominican Sisters in this country, by the way, have the same history. Dominican Nuns are second order Dominicans, enclosed. The Dominican sisters many of us had in school had morphed into "Third Order Regular," active teaching sisters.

So, a lot of "monastic communities" and "monastic tradition" talk you get in this country has little to do with monasticism at all; that's why you can get so puzzled trying to figure out how Benedictine sisters in this country differ from active orders. They don't. And a lot of what they talk about isn't monastic.

From the looks of the linked websites, I'd guess that the Congregation of St Gertrude was founded in 1937 as a group which intended to recover and preserve the monastic tradition in their Order. That's a great need in America.

As for the ecumenical dimension here, that is very interesting. A Religious taking vows, particularly solemn vows, has status in canon law (for example, solemn vows can be dispensed only by the Holy See). I wouldn't think this applies to a Protestant member of the community, which gives them a kind of two-tier status. A Protestant making 'solemn vows' wouldn't have any relationship to the authority of the Catholic Church, and I guess would be making a personal commitment to God and the community.

Necessarily, they should have a two-tier status sacramentally as well. I understand that at Taize, Protestant and Catholic identities are carefully respected regarding the Eucharist; at least, that was the case years ago. The ecumenical witness of this community could have a certain value, I think, if they join together in what they legitimately can, but refrain from false ecumenism regarding the sacraments.

I'd recommend much of the writings of Esther DeWaal to anyone interested in seeing what Benedictine spirituality looks like from an ecumenical perspective. She is the wife of the Dean of Canterbury cathedral, and has a gift for shedding light on the Rule of Benedict.

[John Heavrin]

b, *life* is hard for me to conceive without the Mass and an active Sacramental life. That sounds like I'm dodging your question, but it's the best answer I can think of. One could be a monk without being a Christian, as are Buddhist monks, but to join a Benedictine Community, yet not receive the Sacraments, or be unable to share the Marian devotion of Benedictine community life, would seem to me impossible. My point is not that she should be "banned" or anything of the sort; but that I find it hard to conceive of living in a Benedictine Community without wanting to enter fully into Catholicism (by being a Catholic). Otherwise, one is divided from the brethren (sistren?) on the most fundamental level. The place in question is an ecumenical experiment, apparently, in living the rule of St. Benedict despite not necessarily being Catholic, so my first comments are less apposite than if it were a "traditional" (to use a word free of all freight in these environs...) monastery.

[Susan Peterson]

Mr Rothwell is so dismissive; this is just the lastest fad of liberal Protestants. Carrie describes this community as "the rotten fruit of confusion," I suppose because she is confused by it. Taize has been around for something like half a century and many people have witnessed to the deep spirituality there.
I don't think we can speak as if Protestants have no interior life, or as if God isn't working through them, or as if He can't call them to a certain state of life. I don't think we can presume to know His intentions or the way He is working in every circumstance. We don't own God, we can't tell Him to buckle down and follow the rules and not do things which confuse us!

In this community I presume the sisters will say the office together, live and work together, but receive the sacraments...or whatever sacrament like rituals their own religious tradition observes, in local churches of their own tradition. It seems awkward, but not impossible. I suspect that actually they will all go to mass together. It doesn't bother me if the Presbyterian minister comes to mass and even takes communion, as long as she believes Jesus is truly present. I wouldn't ask her to sign on to any particular theological/philosophical language ie 'transubstantiation' although I think quite highly of that language, but I would want her to agree to "really present" in such a way that she would absolutely know that you can't put left over hosts back in the cabinet with the unconsecrated ones, that Jesus remains present in them. I know the arguments about the signification of unity, I understand them, but I am not sure the rigid application of those arguments is the best thing in every circumstances. What would make me really uncomfortable would be if the Presbyterian minister were regarded as if she were a priest, or if they took turns having 'communion services' from their various traditions and all partook. I am sure Jesus makes Himself present in some way to Presbyterians when they have a Holy Communion service...after all, they are following His command to "Do this in remembrance of me" as well as they understand it. But how can a Catholic recieve in such a circumstance? Do they think Jesus is truly present at a real mass, whereas this is just a memorial service, but a good thing anyway...or do they fail to understand the difference?

But again, the article doesn't tell us what forms of worship the sisters will share.

Susan F. Peterson

[Neil]

I am not sure about the specifics of Benedictine life or canon law, but I think that we should be optimistic about this. The Holy Father has written, "Thanks to ecumenism, our contemplation of 'the mighty works of God' (mirabilia Dei) has been enriched by new horizons, for which the Triune God calls us to give thanks: the knowledge that the Spirit is at work in other Christian Communities, the discovery of examples of holiness, the experience of the immense riches present in the communion of saints, and contact with unexpected dimensions of Christian commitment." The significance of these new horizons means no less than that "the entire life of Christians is marked by a concern for ecumenism; and they are called to let themselves be shaped, as it were, by that concern." The risk of ecumenism, then, is never optional - we must always search for communion with "unexpected dimensions of Christian commitment" if we are to be truly faithful to the Spirit.

This sort of faithfulness demands, I think, first, that we recognize that Reformed Christians are not necessarily "less sacramental" than us. They have a different (and we would say problematic) understanding of the sacraments, to be sure, but an intelligent Reformed Protestant will argue that he is actually more sacramental than a Catholic. After all, the 18th Article of the Church of England claimed that transubstantiation "overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament" by turning a effective sign of God's forgiveness into a fetishized sacred object vulnerable to manipulation and power. And when the Catholic accuses the Reformed of symbolizing the presence of God in the Eucharist, the Reformed Christian can suggest that transubstantiation renders the Second Coming of Christ symbolic if not completely superfluous (a certain ubiquitous Flannery O'Connor quote can backfire). I do not mean to get into arguments about these arguments; honesty simply compels us to acknowledge that they exist. Presbyterians may be very sacramental indeed - at least sacramental enough, so to speak, for monastic life.

Furthermore, our "irrevocable" commitment to ecumenism forces us to ask in humility how the Reformed tradition can help us see new horizons in monasticism. In 1968, Thomas Merton wrote, "The Reformation experience is something badly needed in monasticism to recover its own identity in the contemporary Church. ... The Reformation can make monasticism conscious of and faithful to its own truth." How can this be? Merton writes,

"Monastic determination after Trent bore fruit now in a fantastically single-minded intentness on 'heroic virtue,' now in touching, though bizarre, manifestations of mystical camp. Not only among monks, but in all kinds of sectarian milieux, this state of struggle and of tension sustains an illusion of special election and of incorruptible truth. The endemic disease of monasteries and of sects is that people in them do so much to save their souls that they lose them: not in the sense that they are damned for being good, but in the sense that they concentrate on such peculiar, limited aspects of good that they become perverse and singular. This singularity begets blindness and deafness to Christ. The tense concentration of sect or monastery on some completely peripheral concern can give an impression of heroic faith - but so can the feat of engraving the Lord's Prayer on a pinhead. Fidelity to tedious but predictable rules can become an easy substitute for fidelity, in openness and risk, to the unpredictable word. But the whole point of monastic 'desert' life is precisely to equip the monk for risk, for walking with God in the wilderness, and wrestling with Satan in vulnerable freedom. The monk should by rights be one who knows that faith is his only true protection against the power of great evil. But the monastic institution has surrounded him with so many other protections that the seed which is called to grow, in pure trust, in the desert, is in fact nurtured in a greenhouse. The rationalization is that the greenhouse is really a desert in intention and that God, through kindly representatives, provides a steady supply of water. Instead of wilderness faith and the peril of death by dryness or exhaustion, one accepts faith in another kind of desert: that of protective authoritarian routine."

The witness of a Presbyterian, heir to the Reformation critiques of formalism, may remind monks of the danger of this other kind of desert and the need for a risky fidelity to the "unpredictable word." Indeed, a Presbyterian's presence may help keep monks accountable to authentic monastic renewal, which, according to Merton, must involve an eschatological orientation, mission to the unbeliever, but also an ecumenical openness, since a monk, who walks with God in the wilderness, must be "able to share on the deepest level the risks and agonies of Christian crisis." And that sharing on the deepest level is what true ecumenical dialogue is all about.

Thank you.

Neil

[Joyfully hopeful]

Fr. Wilson, thank you for some very clear explication.

Carrie, don't worry about it so much -- I think it is the (secular) press and the casually disinterested who are confused by it. Look at this as an opportunity for those of us who ARE interested to look into it, see where the confusion lies, and make it clearer to others.

We are having a problem with some of the EMHCs at my church -- they do not understand why, when they make a sick call, they shouldn't also offer the Body of Christ to the nice Baptist lady in the next bed.

We must accept the fact of the (admittedly GROSS) catechetical failure that has allowed an adult Catholic (let alone an extraoridnary minister!) to be so ignorant of his own faith.

But having accepted the fact, we must also seize it as an opportunity to teach.

We Catholics need to remember our mission to evangelize -- and sometimes the targets of our evangelical fervor need to be our co-religionists.

I think what is attractive and acessible in Catholic practice ought to be offered as freely as possible to non-Catholics.

So, someone says liberal Protestants currently look on monasticism as something trendy? GREAT. Let them join us to sing psalms, pray contemplatively, live in community.
Use holy water! Make the sign of the cross! Chant Latin prayers!
Our practices are not idle forms -- they are FORMATIVE.
Do you think our our disciplines have somehow lost the power they had for over a thousand years to reveal our DOCTRINES? and to help impart them to others? And to evangleize?

I don't.

FINALLY, perhaps, VCII will bear its intended fruit -- not to nudge us toward protestantism but to bring our separated sistren and brethren back to the fullness of truth that is the Church.

[Carrie]

Joyfully Hopeful believes only those outside of the faith or those marginally catechized are being confused. I would submit that the recent developments in Fatima indicate that priests and bishops are also confused.

[George]

As others have mentioned, the Anglicans "recovered" monastic orders in the wake of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century. Here is a website that describes the All Saints' Sisters, based outside Baltimore. These Anglican sisters are in communion with the Episcopal Church--somewhat strained at times, I have heard.

http://ralphandsue.com/Convent/

[c matt]

Neil:

Thank you for the clear explanation of differences between Catholic and Reformed sacramentality. I know you don't want to get into a discussion on the merits, but I think it is important to point out, particularly in a comment on differing sacramentality, that this is a significant issue with the Reformed approach. Symbols are not sacraments. A symbol is something that represents something else; a sacrament IS the something else. Thus, if a Reformed considers their communion service symbolic (as opposed to real presence), he cannot at the same time claim it as sacramental. Symbols do not carry any particular grace with them (eg, a crucifix, while it can focus one's attention and meditiation, does in itself carry any special grace). On the other hand, sacraments are no mere symbols - they are vehicles of grace. It just seems to me you can't have things both ways - you can't claim something is merely a symbol, but yet argue it is sacramental. (As I understood it, in the second coming, Christ will come IN GLORY, not under the appearance of bread and wine).

[Father Wilson]

It is really not difficult to see how Benedictine life could be incarnated in an ecumenical setting.

The three Benedictine vows are stability, obedience and conversion of manners. The community lives in a particular place, together; a place which offers them quiet and solitude, as well as the opportunity to offer hospitality. Monastic enclosure, provisions for silence at times, and always in certain places, silent meals etc. all provide for the living together of a large group of people in the same place, but each having the space/silence in which to grow in prayer and to study.

They live together in obedience, under a Superior whom they have freely elected; the Superior governs the community, but in a strongly consultative way (the monastic chapter, consisting of all the professed, discuss any matter of importance, and Benedict insists that even the youngest are heard).

The rhythm of the house is a deliberate seeking after balance between work, rest, prayer, study and leisure. Benedict deliberately edited the monastic tradition he had received, reducing both the strenuous provisions for liturgical prayer of the older Rules and the excessive penances. Everything in the Benedictine way is a matter of balance.

"Nothing is to be preferred" to the Divine Office; seven times daily, once at night (Matins or Vigils), but each Hour of the Office of reasonable length. Most of Benedict's monks were laymen, not priests; indeed, in the early days often the Abbot was not ordained.

A balanced Benedictine community serves us all as a sacrament -- a sign -- of what we all aspire to in our own lives: that balance between work, rest, prayer, study and leisure; the focused, constant, attentive reading of/listening to God's Word; a disciplined way of living among and with others, of 'hospitality.' Because it serves as such a sign to us all, Benedictine houses have always drawn seekers (I myself became an Oblate of St Benedict, sort of like a third order, at nineteen years of age). It is interesting and a welcome development if some houses are deliberately becoming a more evident sign to all Christians as well. Benedictine life is extraordinarily rich, and certainly most of its aspects can be fully lived out in an ecumenical context.

I say this with the caveat: this must be a true ecumenism, not a blurring of distinctions we have no right to minimize, or a seeking after an easy "unity" rather than doing the work for unity we really need to do.

[b]

A few links to non-RomanCatholic Benedictine monasteries in the US:

St. Augustine's House, a Lutheran Benedictine monastery of the Congregation of the Servant's of Christ, in Michigan.

Holy Cross Monastery, an Episcopal Benedictine monastery of the Order of the Holy Cross, in New York.

St. Gregory's Abbey, an Episcopal Benedictine monastery.

National Catholic Reporter article on the founding of St. Brigid of Kildare Monastery in Minnisota, for Methodist women.

And here is a brief summary of Protestant Monasticism since 1841 when the first Anglican monastery was founded since the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII about 300 years earlier.

And a nice quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "...the restoration of the church will surely come only from a new type of monasticism which has nothing in common with the old but a complete lack of compromise in a life lived in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount in the discipleship of Christ. I think it is time to gather people together to do this..."

Esther De Waal, as mentioned earlier, has a number of wonderful books looking at Benedictine monasticism from an Anglican perspective, such as "Seeking God: The Way of St. Benedict," and "Living with Contradiction: An Introduction to Benedictine Spirituality." And don't forget the writings of Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB, such as "Wisdom Distilled from the Daily: Living the Rule of St. Benedict Today."

There are many great and wonderful Benedictine Roman Catholics, today and through the centuries.
But Benedictine is not necessarily Roman Catholic.
Christian monasticism is not necesarily Benedictine (there are many traditions including Eastern, Desert and experimental, eremitic and cenobitic).
Monastic spirituality and life is not necesarily Christian. See, for example, the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue.

[Christine]

"Do they think Jesus is truly present at a real mass, whereas this is just a memorial service, but a good thing anyway...or do they fail to understand the difference?"

Susan, for Presbyterians the presence of Christ in Holy Communion is purely spiritual. And there's the issue of the significance of Holy Communion in relation to the gathered community under the Catholic bishop, which a Presbyterian could not accept, since they don't have episcopal orders.

I agree that Taize is a beautiful example of ecumenical spirituality but the fact remains that intercommunion is not practiced there. Interestingly, Brother Max Thurian, one of the original Protestant founders, has now entered the Catholic Church.

[Christine]

I am also somewhat troubled by Smith's statements that she was "attracted" to the sacraments. I was "attracted" to them, too, but permission to actually partake of them only came through my formal conversion to Catholicism.

I simply don't see how a Presbyterian woman could remain in that tradition and enter into a full Catholic sacramental life even.

[Christine]

"Full Catholic sacramental life even???" Pardon me for sounding like Snagglepuss -- even --.

[meep]

Okay, it's an ecumenical community. I think the article could have been a little more clear on that (though I wouldn't be surprised if the author didn't know that). I did not realize that a "Benedictine" order was not necessarily Catholic. I suppose the common thread is keeping by the Benedictine rule (excepting going to Mass, of course).

[Neil]

Dear C Matt,

Thank you for your answer. I don't think that this is the right time and place to get into a discussion of the merits of Reformed theology on the sacraments. I don't want to minimize the existing differences between Catholic and Reformed theology on this matter. Nor do I want to suggest that intercommunion, apart from the "particular cases" discussed in Ecclesia de Eucharistia n46, is a present possibility.

But, admitting that there is variance in the Reformed family on sacramental theology and practice, I think that Calvin has a "sacramental" (not merely symbolic!) understanding of the Lord's Supper that is rather interesting and provides a basis for a Presbyterian to participate, albeit incompletely, in Catholic sacramental life. Calvin is willing to say:

"But as the blessings of Jesus Christ do not belong to us at all, unless he be previously ours, it is necessary, first of all, that he be given us in the Supper, in order that the things which we have mentioned may be truly accomplished in us. For this reason I am wont to say, that the substance of the sacraments is the Lord Jesus, and the efficacy of them the graces and blessings which we have by his means" (Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, 11)

But Calvin differs from standard Catholic understandings because he strongly believes that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. After all, Christ's body must be finite just like ours, thinks Calvin, for, as St Gregory the Theologian said, "what has not been assumed cannot be healed." So, in the Eucharist, Christ in heaven, like the rays of the sun, objectively descends to us through the outpouring of the Spirit in the epiclesis. This descent raises our souls up in an objective ascent to heaven - the Eucharistic elements are gates or ladders (think Gen 28.17) that lift us to heaven where we look for Christ (Calvin will expound on the meaning of "sursum corda"). The direct activity of Christ in the Eucharist allows Calvin to speak of a substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Is this the same sort of "substantial presence" that Catholic theology recognizes? I'm not sure, but, again, we can recognize "sacramentality" in this formulation.

Calvin appeals, for instance, to St John Chrysostom: "For when you see the Lord sacrificed and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim .. can you then think that you are still among humans and standing upon the earth? Are you not, on the contrary, straightway translated to heaven, and, casting out every carnal thought from the soul, do you not, with disembodied spirit and pure reason, contemplate the things that are in heaven?" (On the Priesthood, 3.4)

Again, this is no basis for premature intercommunion. But it does give a basis for a Presbyterian to participate meaningfully in Catholic sacramental life. And, for us, although Calvin's theology probably cannot be fully embraced, Calvin reminds us that there is something eschatological, reaching up to heaven, about the Eucharist. The relationship of eschatology and the Eucharist is something that, I think, has been relatively muted in Western theology (it is briefly mentioned in Ecclesia de Eucharistia) compared to the east.

Thank you again for your kind message.

Neil

[b]

A few commentors have mentioned the topic of monastic vows.

Earlier the Three monastic vows were mentioned. These are made before God, abbot/abbess and community. Bishops are not required, and you may see an Abbot looking a lot like a bishop.

Religious such as Franciscans and Dominicans take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Diocesean clergy take vows of chastity and obedience to their bishop and his successors (not poverty). Benedictine monastic vows are different from most "religious order" vows or clerical vows.

For something different, here are two articles on monastic vows from a Buddhist perspective.
Obviously, these vows have nothing to do with Catholic bishops, the Pope or Canon Law.

[Todd]

Peace, all.

The openness and the confusion of the comments on this thread is striking. If a person is confused about a matter of faith or religion, it is not always true that such confusion is perpetrated from without either accidentally or maliciously. Confusion can be a fruit of one's own faults, and have nothing to do with another person.

I find it hard to believe a Catholic could refer to Benedictine spirituality as a fad. What's the pedigree here? Something like 1500 years. I wonder what that makes Trent?

[Dan]

For something really different, here and here are web sites regarding traditional Benedictines in the U.S.

See here and here for the real deal on O.S.B. The holy men and women of the black robes will certainly play a part in what's to come, but in a way that Barbara Battin probably can't even imagine.

[andrew]

Though a Catholic, married man, I've studied quite a bit about monasticism. Harly an expert by any means.

First, I would tend to agree that to Catholic monasticism, the Sacraments, the Mass in particular, are the center and source of the monastic life. I also tend to agree that a monastic-lite version has been adopted by our Protestant friends. That's not a jab, I believe people of all faiths could learn much from Christian monastic tradition. That said, if one is Catholic and wishes to learn more of monastic tradition, stick to Cistercian [Trappist], not Benedictine writings. Merton, M. Basil Pennington, and so on. The Cistercian's have a rich, theologically sound history of Catholic monasticism from the 12th century. St. Bernard, St. Aelred, just two of the most beautiful writers on the faith.

As for the writings mentioned by 'b'; Waal is a wonderful writer, but not Catholic. Her writings are beautiful but are lacking due to, well, the lack of the Sacraments. Read Merton and you will see the Sacramental life so infused with that of himself and the other monks the two are inseperable. Of course a Catholic perspective. As for Chittister, she's a well-known detractor, dare I say schismatic who laces her writings with jabs at the all-male Catholic clergy, amongst other "progressive" theology. That said, her book "Wisdom Distilled From the Daily" on St. Benedict is quite good, just be prepared for the occasional barbs from Sr. Issues.

[b]

It should be clear by now that "Benedictine monasticism" means different things to different people. Each monastery is as unique as a person's home, even if belonging to some federation/congregation.

Personally, I love the llama sisters, and I find them a wonderful balance to the rigors of say, the Carthusians.

Isn't the rich diversity of the Church a wonderful thing to behold?

[andrew]

To clarify, it's not that the "Benedictine lite" some are taking interest in is a fad but a missapropriation of the true sense of the monastic life. To be sure, and this sounds silly, but only monks can be monks. I'm married and can never be a monk. That said, I can adopt a life of balance, one of prayer and work, obedience to my vocation [husband, father], and conversion to Christ.

St. Benedict in his rule speaks clearly on the types of monks. Those with a true calling are ones who live in monastary, under a rule, obedient to an abbot. Some of the Benedictine flavors one sees in other groups lack this, and are more akin to the "Landlopers", those who take on aspects of a rule, but go from one thing to the next, those who adopt what they like, but discard what they don't. I see this with some of these Protestant groups. Does God ignore them, hardly, but it's a misinterpretation of the truth. I can join some "monastic" group, that might even be Benedictine, but I'm not a monk, I'm still a married guy. I don't see many of these groups really making that distinction.

[b]

Married monks do seem to have existed in Celtic practice. Legends of the married monks of Iona, pure Culdee.
---
Though similar, our Celtic ancestors did have some peculiarities of their own. The most striking is the admission of married persons into the ranks of monks and nuns. These early Christians accepted marital chastity on a par with celibate chastity. Here is where our community is different from other Orders in our own day. We, as did our forebears, permit and accept into the order married persons under the full Rule to the full status of Monk. The only difference between the single and the married person is in carrying out the application of Chastity.

Footnote: Some have endeavored to state that these married monks and nuns were nothing more than tenant farmers on monastic property, but this does not explain the admittance of married persons into the Rules of St. Maelruain and other Rules of Celtic influence. See notes in our Rule.
----
O.K. This in an Anglican community, and Anglicans also have married (and female) clergy. Still, one should not say that "married" and "monk" are absolutely exclusive. There have also been married Buddhist monks.

As monasticism in the West developed into an almost exclusively cenobitical practice, which is what the Rule of Benedict addresses (except for hints at more mature monks being hermits), married life would of course be difficult; single sex communities were best.

But I don't see anything in an eremitical or semi-eremitical monastic community that preculdes married couples from participating. Monasticism is not incompatible with marriage, although customary monastic structures and organizational forms do tend to exclude it. Actually, "monastic spirituality, values and practice" could make for wonderful family life, especially the ideas of stability and conversion. One of the most important aspects of the various Oblate and Associate programs at monasteries is to welcome those in the married state into the monastic life. Oblates are connected to a specific monastery, as an expression of the monastic vow of stability. Of course in a Roman Catholic context, "monk" is usually reserved for those persons living in the monastery under vows. It is better, perhaps, for a married Benedictine Oblate couple to just use that label, if necessary. The same applies to married third orders in other religious communities. There is no sharp discontinuity between monastic life, or religious life, and married life.

[b]

A beautiful article on a married monastic community.

They are Orthodox, not Roman.

[Father Wilson]

I think I have this figured out.

The website opens, "We, Sisters of S Benedict, and Benedictine Women of Madison..."

I was puzzling over the conversation here; I know almost nothing about Canon Law (which is the twenty-ninth chapter of Matthew's Gospel, for those of you seeking more info), but I know that one of the things the canons concern themselves with is decision-making in Religious communities, and who votes -- rightly so. Canon Law mostly is concerned about peoples' rights.

And I was thinking, "Wouldn't there be canonical issues if a Religious community admitting people to solemn vows admitted to full voting membership persons not in full Communion with the Church?"

I think the Benedictine Sisters here have devised a way to admit non-Catholic members without contravening canon law. We have the "Sisters of Saint Benedict," a canonical Catholic community, and the "Benedictine Women of Madison." I'd bet that for voting on canonical issues, the "Sisters of Saint Benedict" are suffragettes (ahem!), and for specific community and house issues the Sisters and "Benedictine Women" consult and deliberate and vote.

I think I'll email and ask them.

[b]

It seems that the National Catholic Reporter printed a lengthy article about them on February 21, 2003.

About Smith: "When she made her first profession to monastic life in June 2000, she fulfilled a childhood dream of becoming a nun--but without abandoning her denomination. Along with Sr. Mary David Walgenbach, prioress, and Sr. Joanne Kollasch, director of monastic formation, the three comprise the core of what is thought to be the first ecumenical community for women in the United States."

About the community: " Kollasch, 71, and Walgenbach, 63, are thrilled that Smith, 48, has joined them."

And for those concerned about intercommunion: "The community recognizes the differences that exist among Christians concerning the Eucharist. The sisters encourage those coming to the center to have access to the eucharistic celebration of their respective church traditions, according to their needs and desires. Capuchin Fr. Ken Smits serves as the center's pastoral minister."

The article also talks about the Methodist Benedictine monastery for women.

[Joy]

Carrie, I would include some priests I know personally, and some Bishops, from what I can glean about them from their actions and published words, as "marginally catechized."

Tod, don't pretend you think anyone in this converstaion called Benedictine monasticism in and of itself a "fad."

[Susan Peterson]

"only a symbol" "purely spiritual" And both of these opposed to "real." First of all, you cannot say that a sacrament is NOT a symbol. Even an ordinary symbol is something very powerful; a sacrament is the most perfect form of symbol, a symbol which effects (makes happen) what it signifies. Ok, now let us figure out what is "real" about something.Some ordinary bread-what is "real" about it? Is what is real about it the flour, water, salt, and yeast that it is made out of? Its molecular structure, of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen? Or is what is "real" about it that it is something human beings can eat, that can relieve physical hunger? that is, its purpose, what it was made for, its meaning? At one point it was very clear to people that what is "real" about anything is its meaning and purpose, the end for which it exists. This is the "being" of something. The Latin philosophical word "substance" translated the Greek word for being, "ousia." The substance of bread is its being or meaning,something to nourish the physical life of humans. Of course it is also made of stuff, flour etc, and it looks a certain way, brown or white, puffy or flat. These characteristics were known in philosophical language as "accidents." When the bread becomes the body of Christ, when it is "transubstantiated" its substance or being in this sense is changed, it's meaning and purpose to the body of Christ given to feed our spiritual life. It still looks exactly the same. No molecular structure is changed. This is what we mean when we say Christ is "really" present. However, at some point in history the common conception of what is "real" changed. People started to think of "real" more as referring to what something is made of. When real meant, when 'substance' came to mean "what stuff is this made of" then the doctrine of transubstantiantion conveyed to people's minds something grossly physical. This is the way of thinking out of which come those stories of a host bleeding when pricked by a pin, etc. Within this new philosophical framework, people came up with attempts to describe the way Christ is present in the Eucharist. To say that his presence is "purely spiritual" is not incorrect, if one means by it that the true meaning or purpose, the true being of the bread, has been changed from food for the body, to Jesus Himself, the food for the soul that He intended to give us. I believe this is what was intended to be meant by "purely spiritual." And, since a symbol is something which stands for or represents what something really means, "symbolic" is not far from the truth either. The problem is that our common modern understanding really is that "stuff" is real and meanings, purposes etc are less real, so that when people hear "symbolic" or "spiritual" they tend to hear, and even to act as if this means "not quite real, not really real, real only in my head." Those who wrote that Jesus was "truly and spiritually present" and other suchlike statements, did not at all intend this to be turned into "real only in my head."
Susan F Peterson

[Christine]

Susan,

The Presbyterian Church in America (and some other Reformed traditions) still subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The section of that statement regarding the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper, includes:

5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Granted, "transubstantiation" has been misused in both Catholic and Protestant circles but the Reformed understanding of the sacrament still differs from the Roman and Orthodox. For catholic Christians, the sacraments ARE what they SIGNIFY. For Calvin, Christ remains in heaven dispensing his grace to the believer in the sacrament. For Catholics, the veil of time is drawn back at every Eucharist and Christ is really and truly present at that moment, locally and universally, the bread and wine having been transformed into his body and blood.

I am by no means denying that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace for Presbyterians. But our understanding does still differ. Catholics would also maintain that whether the believer is worthy or not, the objective presence of Christ is the sacrament is not nullified in reception.

[Jeanne]

VERRRRY INTERESTING....

Now what church?

[David Kubiak]

Surely an instance like this makes a mockery of the concept of "invincible ignorance" with regard to the necessity of the Church for salvation. My thought is precisely opposite to what people are saying here -- if you can get as close as Rev. Battin has and still say outside, I think you're in big trouble.

[Joyfully Hopeful]

'Surely an instance like this makes a mockery of the concept of "invincible ignorance" with regard to the necessity of the Church for salvation. My thought is precisely opposite to what people are saying here -- if you can get as close as Rev. Battin has and still say outside, I think you're in big trouble.'

David, it is not Judgement Day, linear time has not ended -- who is to say that what is, (today) will be (tomorrow?)
Do you not expect to become a wiser, more devout, more spiritual, more holy, more fully CATHOLIC person than you are at this minute?
Our spiritual journeys are not complete, why expect that hers is?

Joy

[b]

I have a question for the collective wisdom here. I ask because I really don't know, not spending much time in Catholic parishes these days (not that I didn't serve as an Adult Catechist, RCIA coordinator, lector, etc. in parishes in the past):

Can the non-Catholic spouse receive communion when marrying a Catholic spouse in a Catholic wedding in a Catholic church? Yes or no, and I imagine there might be differences of opinion.

If yes, is it because the non-Catholic spouse is making a very significant committment to the Catholic Church, and, in fact, joining "as one flesh" with a Catholic? This is a "close enounter" sort of thing with the Catholic Church.

If this is allowed, I don't see why a Presbyterian making Solemn Vows in a Catholic monastery could not receive communion. This also is a committment to the Catholic Church, and a "close encounter."

Just asking. I remember tha most of the folks that went through RCIA were non-Catholic spouses (and more than 80% were female non-Catholic spouses rather than male).

[Christine]

B,

I am a convert to Catholicism, raised in a family of Catholics and Lutherans with a short stint in the Episcopal Church before my conversion.

My husband, raised Catholic, was previously married to a non-Catholic woman (he received an annullment of his first marriage). When he married his first wife, a non-denominational Christian, she was not permitted to receive Communion and he was required to receive a dispensation from the bishop because his wife was not baptized. Having been Catholic for over seven years now, I understand the communal aspect of Catholicism that makes unity in faith a high priority because of the sacramental foundations of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, for that matter).

As a rule a non-Catholic spouse still may not receive. My Lutheran nephew was married to a Catholic girl two years ago and the priest who presided at their wedding announced in a very diplomatic but firm way that only Catholics could receive at the wedding Mass.

[Christine]

I don't see why a Presbyterian making Solemn Vows in a Catholic monastery could not receive communion. This also is a committment to the Catholic Church, and a "close encounter."

B, in all charity, it also occurred to me that a "commitment to the Catholic Church" would of logic entail membership therein. Close encounters simply won't do. Catholics and Orthodox consider marriage a sacrament whereas many non-Catholic Christians don't, and that also impacts the reception of Holy Communion at a Catholic wedding. Although my husband WAS sacramentally married to his first wife, she still could not receive because she was not in full sacramental communion with the Catholic Church. That would also be the case for Rev. Battin, who may become a Benedictine but will also not be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

[David Kubiak]

Joy:
We're back to the issue that periodically provokes rancorous discussion on Mark Shea's blog. No real Christian wants to see another human being lose salvation, or is interested in trying to exclude some people for the purpose of feeling superior himself. But we have minds, and intellectually you cannot avoid making judgments about doctrines of the Faith and how various attitudes relate to them.

I cannot see how the Church can promote a religious foundation that says it "celebrates the diversity of its members." Does the Roman Catholic Church "celebrate" Lutheranism, or Presbyterianism? It may appreciate and emphasize elements of these communities that are the common possession of Christianity, but celebrating religious diversity I can only understand as promoting indifferentism, which I would claim is how the Church's ecumenical initiatives are preceived in practical, as opposed to theoretical, terms.

I haven't read all the materials about this foundation. My hope would be that it is not officially Roman Catholic at all.

[b]

Dear Christine,

Thanks for sharing your experience and perspective. Here is something from the Archdiocese of Brisbane that is leaning more toward hospitality for special occasions:
---
Eucharistic Hospitality

There are significant events in the lives of individual Christians and their families when requests to receive holy communion at a Catholic Mass will be made. If we consider the high frequency of marriage between Catholics and other Christians in Australia, the extensive sacramental preparation programs for children which require the participation of parents, many of whom are not Catholic, and the increasingly favourable ecumenical climate in our Archdiocese, it is very likely that such requests will be forthcoming on a variety of occasions. This will be more so once our Church's openness to responding to the spiritual need of other Christians is better known. The following are some examples of possible spiritual need: for the partner at a marriage celebrated with a nuptial Mass; for the parent of a child baptised at a Catholic Mass; for the parent of a child receiving confirmation and first holy communion; for the family of the deceased at a funeral Mass. Similarly, requests may come from Christians who are denied easy access to a minister of their own Church because they are confined to a health care facility, or are subject to some form of institutional confinement.

There should not be a general invitation from the presiding priest for Christians from other churches to receive holy communion at a Catholic Mass. Each case must be considered on its merit. The person must make a request without any kind of pressure, must manifest the Catholic belief in the eucharist, and must have appropriate dispositions. In the Archdiocese of Brisbane it is sufficient for the presiding priest to establish, by means of a few simple questions, whether or not these conditions are met.

When a Christian from another Church makes frequent requests to receive holy communion, different circumstances prevail. In such cases joint pastoral care by the clergy of both Churches should be offered to help the person understand the significance of such requests.

Interchurch Marriages

The Directory on Ecumenism states that eucharistic sharing for a spouse in a mixed marriage can only be exceptional. The Directory, however, recognises a category of mixed marriages where each partner lives devotedly within the tradition of his and her Church. It sees such couples making a significant contribution to the ecumenical movement. A spouse in such a marriage, now commonly called an interchurch marriage, could well experience a serious spiritual need to receive holy communion each time he or she accompanies the family to a Catholic Mass. Requests for this kind of eucharistic hospitality should be refer-red by the parish priest to the Archbishop or one of the auxiliary bishops.
----

So, it seems neither impossible nor casual, but something that would properly come out of adequate pastoral care and prayer and fellowship with all relevant ecclesial authorities.

[Christine]

B, my "experience and perspective", as you put it, are the norms for the U.S. Church. I would not extrapolate the Australian experience too widely here. Yes, there will from time to time be exceptions but they will be just that -- exceptions according to the permission of the local Bishop.

Having lived on both sides of the fence and witnessed the rapid deconstruction of Eucharistic practice and theology in some Christian denominations I am glad that the Catholic and Orthodox communions are moving very cautiously in this area. The Eucharist is the central act of worship in both.

[b]

Dear Christine,

May I ask what state you live in?
You may not realize I've lived my entire life as a resident of California (apart from time in other countries). I guess California is different.

[John Heavrin]

"I guess California is different."

Understatement of the century.

[b]

It looks like Montana is also different. The have a nice discussion of conditions for non-Roman Catholic individuals to receive communion at a Catholic Mass. In regard to authority, they write:

"As Bishops of the Dioceses of Montana, we would like to share this authority, on the basis of these guidelines, with the priests and deacons of our dioceses. The priest or deacon in the local situation will know best all the implications involved in responding to a request for Eucharistic sharing on an individual basis."

I just love the diversity of our Church!

[Christine]

B,

I live in the northeast which still has many ethnic parishes as well as "All American" parishes. I attend Mass every Sunday for the most part at the parish where I am registered but sometimes go trolling to different parishes just to see what's going on.

I have never yet encountered a general invitation to non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

I've also lived in other countries -- as a matter of fact, I spent three years in Australia, one in Mildura and a couple in Adelaide.

Yes -- California is "different" in many ways.

And then, of course, there is the Holy Father's teaching on Eucharistic sharing -- or doesn't that relate to your Catholic sense of "diversity?"

[Christine]

"I haven't read all the materials about this foundation. My hope would be that it is not officially Roman Catholic at all."

That may well be the case, David. One thing my experience with the Episcopal Church taught me is that Catholics and (some) Episcopalians/Anglicans may be using similar terminology and liturgical customs but are in the end not saying the same thing at all.

[b]

Hi Christine,

I agree that "a general invitation to non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion" is wrong on many levels, theological, canonical and pastoral. But that is not what I'm asking about.

I'm asking about individuals. That is what the documents from Brisbane and Montana address. Individuals. Clearly not "general invitations." But individuals in specific situations, such as a wedding or a baptism or a funeral, or incarceration, or being in a nursing home, or a monastery.

I don't see that the Church teaches anywhere that these Individuals who express a desire to receive Communion and have been baptized and live a reasonable Christian life are to be refused after proper consultation with the relevant ecclesial authorities.

In regard to the teaching of our dear Holy Father, I read in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, ---
45. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.
This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.
This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
46. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments.
Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are vali.

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98

The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.

[Christine]

"I'm asking about individuals. That is what the documents from Brisbane and Montana address. Individuals. Clearly not "general invitations." But individuals in specific situations, such as a wedding or a baptism or a funeral, or incarceration, or being in a nursing home, or a monastery.

I don't see that the Church teaches anywhere that these Individuals who express a desire to receive Communion and have been baptized and live a reasonable Christian life are to be refused after proper consultation with the relevant ecclesial authorities."

I haven't seen it happen in any of the parishes I've visited.

It is noteworthy that the Holy Father uses the words "exceptional" and "grave" circumstance. Imminent death would certainly apply. I'm not sure a wedding would fit the bill.

I've know couples at my parish where the Protestant spouse has attended Mass with the Catholic spouse literally for years. Two of them became Catholic last year. The others do not go up to receive Communion.

[Barb N]

Doctrinal confusion: The Martyrdom of the 21st Century

[David Kubiak]

I remembered puzzling over the passage of the Holy Father's encyclical quoted above when it was published. Is he talking exclusively about the Orthodox here or not? If not, he would seem to be describing someone who believes everything the Catholic Church believes but for some strange reason happens to be a Unitarian. I still don't get it.

[Han Ng]

Mr. Kubiak,

I don't think that the passage quoted refers only to the Orthodox. "Churches" refers to the Orthodox, the Nestorian Oriental Churches and the Monophysite Oriental Churches (I use Nestorian and Monophysite here as terms of convenience to designate communion, not to pronounce on whether they are actually Nestorians or Monophysites). "Ecclesial Communities," on the other hand, is the new ecumenically correct term for Protestant. Perhaps in this case, the Pope had in mind those Protestants with valid Holy Orders and minimal heretical belief, such as some Anglicans and some Church of Sweden Lutherans. On the other hand, the Pope might have in mind something more along the line of the Orthodox theology of economia in which canons are violated for the sake of the salvation of an individual soul. I agree with Christine that we are probably talking about giving a dying Southern Baptist Viaticum--not the non-Catholic partner in a mixed marriage Holy Communion to "make the day so much more special."

[b]

Another article on this community.

[b]

On August 7, Sr. Joanne Kollasch, OSB (PDF), celebrated her 50 year Jubilee (PDF). She tells some of the story of St. Benedict Center from a personal perspective.

And here is a Lutheran article about St. Benedict Center.

And a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal article from 1998.

[b]

From the 1998 Milwaukee JS article:

---
Creating an ecumenical community also can be difficult.
Many Protestant church leaders have been receptive, though they are watching to make sure their women are not co-opted into something that's not what it claims to be, Walgenbach said.
Lay Catholics have had mixed reactions, depending partly upon their ecumenical experience, she said. Members of Catholic religious communities have generally been supportive.
The sisters have kept Madison Bishop William Bullock informed, and he is taking a wait-and-see attitude, said diocesan spokesman William Brophy.
The sisters don't think they need approval from the bishop or the Vatican for most of their plans. Their canon lawyer advised them that the federation of 18 autonomous Benedictine communities to which they belong has authority to approve the essentials, Walgenbach said.
The federation unanimously approved the planning. About 56 Benedictine prioresses nationwide also voiced support. The sisters are so certain the federation will OK final details in 1999 that recruiting has begun.
As a non-canonical community, the sisters will lose some voting rights in the federation, Kollasch said. But guidance and accountability from the federation will be vital.
"We don't want to be some isolated little group," Walgenbach said. "We are working very hard to take all of those steps without causing great alarm from some hierarchy that thinks we are going off the deep end."
---
So it looks like this is a "non-canonical" community, with no particular desire to be "Catholic," although the founders/leaders are Catholic. They really want to be an "ecumenical Benedictine monastery," and try to avoid irritating ecclesial authorities of any flavor. Apparently the Liturgy of the Hours is their primary common liturgy, not eucharist. Concerns about non-Catholics at a Catholic Mass are probably moot.

It does begin to sound more like an ecumenical retreat center. I don't understand how Rev. Smith's "vows" can have any particular canonical significance. Most monasteries (regular, "real" monasteries) of the Federation of St. Gertrude require that you be Catholic. If she wants to make private vows to a non-canonical ecumenical community, o.k. She obviously doesn't become Catholic. Perhaps she does not become part of OSB (which is Catholic)? Do they start a Presbyterian Benedictine order for her? I'm confused.

(Years ago when I was attracted by monasticism, I just became Catholic. Life is so much easier that way.)

[b]

Well, Rev. Smith is using the postnomial OSB.

Also, the original article that Amy posted is now archived.

[michigancatholic]

And I thought the Franciscans were screwed up!!

Religious life, including the third orders is totally messed up right now, and most of the orders need to be refounded. They no longer do much of anything.

[michigancatholic]

Indeed, in many of the old orders, they no longer do anything because everyone is too old, or infirm, or too wrapped up in dissent.

[Todd]

Peace, Joy.

I believe the quote was, ""Benedictine spirituality" is one of the latest fads..." which as a Catholic and an admirer of Benedictines, I take extreme exception to. It is the kind of comment one might find in anti-Catholic circles.

I thank Amy for posting an interesting story, but really, unless a person is a member of this particular Benedictine community, it's not really anyone's business how Rev Battin handles the sacramental issues of her membership. Honestly, St Blog's sometimes takes on the appearance of a catty gossipy coffee hour.

[michigancatholic]

Wow, does that mean we can have anyone in the third orders who wants to join?? Would you mind explaining to me precisely what the point of a third order might be?

[michigancatholic]

Hitler could have been a Benedictine. Shazaam.

[b]

I don't understand why commentors keep mentioning Rev. Battin.

The Rev. Barbara Battin, Presbyterian minister from Ohio, will be the homilist when Rev. Lynne Smith, Presbyterian minister, makes her solemn vows this coming Saturday October 10.

If the community has no canonical status, and is sort of an "informal experimental ecumenical monastery," then I can perhaps understand why Rev. Smith wants to maintain her position in the Presbyterian Church.

I don't really think this is nobody's business but the community's, as they are experimental and "something new" on the landscape which affects both Catholics and Protestants. But it is always good to be open and courteous.

[Christine]

"Honestly, St Blog's sometimes takes on the appearance of a catty gossipy coffee hour."

And Todd, it seems you just love it -- you keep coming back!! :) :)

"Apparently the Liturgy of the Hours is their primary common liturgy, not eucharist. Concerns about non-Catholics at a Catholic Mass are probably moot."

That resolves a lot of difficult matters. Personally, I think the Liturgy of the Hours is a wonderful ecumenical vehicle for introducing Christians of the more "free" traditions to the beauty of cyclical prayers that sanctify time.

[Patrick Sweeney]

My take on this is quite different from the previous commenters. I read the original article and it saddened me. The article has two themes:

(1) The triumph clearly presented here is that an 'ecumenical' identity has displaced a 'Catholic' identity of "a monastery founded by Roman Catholic sisters".

(2) Faddishness and novelty is saturating the article -- with special mockery given to its Catholic foundation -- "Does the pope [sic] know? Does your mother know?"

The life of being an "ordained Protestant minister" is treated seriously but the undefined "monastic life" is presented as a mixture of quaint and bizarre -- almost like a reality show of the "ceremony based on the 6th century Rule of St. Benedict".

Since only two other women who are over 65 form this community in Madison with the 50 year old novice, it's possible that Rev. Lynne Smith's most important function will be the liquidation of the 130 acres of valuable Madison real estate as God calls home the last sisters of the order.

[Will E.]

michigancatholic,

I call shenanigans... I don't think we're allowed to invoke Godwin's Law here in St. Blogs.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

[Todd]

Peace, Patrick.

Then I think your sadness is due to a secular media outlet producing an article written by a person who perhaps does not have the full grasp of what religious life might be. A good corollary example might be a book reviewer writing sports copy or a sportswriter writing on fashion. Likely they wouldn't grasp the full nuances of their topic, no matter how skilled at journalism they might be.

"And Todd, it seems you just love it -- you keep coming back!"

Christine, you do have at least four times as many posts on the thread as I do. I might also have to remind my daughter to hurry up and get ready for school a half-dozen times on her bad mornings, but that doesn't mean I love it. I'm just calling it as I see it. CCC 2478 seems to have been ignored a lot on this thread.

[CHristine]

From the NCR article:

"The community recognizes the differences that exist among Christians concerning the Eucharist. The sisters encourage those coming to the center to have access to the eucharistic celebration of their respective church traditions, according to their needs and desires. Capuchin Fr. Ken Smits serves as the center’s pastoral minister. He offers Mass on Sundays, gives retreats and counsels those afflicted with addictions.

Where public liturgy is concerned, the Eucharist falls more directly within the bishop’s domain,” said Walgenbach, adding that there are still “some tugs” over this issue. The bishop, who has attended vespers -- at which Walgenbach and Kollasch sat on either side of him -- “has some rights; so does the community,” she said. “Where Benedictine community life is concerned, there’s much autonomy in how we conduct our life.”

The bishop has "some" rights? Seems to me that where the Eucharist is concerned, at least in Catholic contexts, that's a bit of an understatement.

Yes, Todd, on this particular issue I do -- but if you'll check the past couple months, you'll see that I take l-o--o-o-o-o-ng absences from blogworld!!

Your citation of the Catechism regarding judgment of neighbor really doesn't fit here, I think. The way this Benedictine Community lives its life either does or does not reflect its Catholic heritage and having gone very public with their mission they have every right to be scrutinized.

[b]

Having read, written and pondered so much over this community over the last two days, all I want to do now is pray for them: for Sr. Rev. Lynne Smith, who is making Solemn Vows on Saturday, for the Catholic Benedictine Sisters there and all their community from various Christian traditions, for the Presbyterian community to which Sr. Rev. Lynne belongs, and to the Catholic Church.

Religious profession is a sacramental of the Roman Catholic Church (SC 80). In regard to sacramentals, SC 60-61 says, "These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church's intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy. Thus, for well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event in their lives; they are given access to the stream of divine grace which flows from the paschal mystery of the passion, death, the resurrection of Christ, the font from which all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is hardly any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God."

May all the events of this coming weekend, and the work of this ecumenical community, enjoy that stream of divine grace which flows from the paschal mystery, and be directoed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.

[Todd]

Peace, Christine.

"The bishop has "some" rights?"

Yes, he has some, but his governance over the internal affairs of religious communities in his diocese are limited, in accord with tradition.

"Seems to me that where the Eucharist is concerned, at least in Catholic contexts, that's a bit of an understatement."

Not really.

"Your citation of the Catechism regarding judgment of neighbor really doesn't fit here, I think."

I disagree. Few commenters probably heard of this particular community before this post. I think the St Blog's presumption of "shenanigans" is superceded by the Catholic presumption of "favorability."

"The way this Benedictine Community lives its life either does or does not reflect its Catholic heritage ..."

Either way, none of our business.

" ... they have every right to be scrutinized."

If so, that would be undertaken by their superiors, not by bloggers, bishops, or bull-headed gossips.

[Joyfully Hopeful]

Just trying to clarify:

Someone said:"Benedictine spirituality" is one of the latest fads among the movement liberal Protestant clergy and lay activists.

Todd said:I find it hard to believe a Catholic could refer to Benedictine spirituality as a fad.

I said (forgive the mispelling): Tod, don't pretend you think anyone in this converstaion called Benedictine monasticism in and of itself a "fad."

Todd said: I believe the quote was, ""Benedictine spirituality" is one of the latest fads..." which as a Catholic and an admirer of Benedictines, I take extreme exception to. It is the kind of comment one might find in anti-Catholic circles.

Since you went back to get the original quote to which you take exception, I am at a loss to understand how you missed the words "among the movement liberal Protestant clergy and lay activists," since your use of the elipsis shows you did know there was more to the sentence.

So come on I can't believe you genuinely take exception, unless you are looking for something to be offended by ("Officer, officer, the couple next door are running around naked! Look, if you climb up on this 20 foot ladder, and walk along the roof, and lean out as far as you can hangin on the drainpipe and hold a mirror angled just so and there's a strong enough breeze to blow that leafy branch out of the way.... I want them charged with public indecency!")

Am I being anti-Catholic if I say that because of groups like Enigma Gregorian chant was a fad among gay club kids?
Am I being anti-Semitic (or anti-mystic) to say that thanks to a certain pop singer Cabala is a fad in Hollywood?
Or, for that matter, being anti-Catholic or opposed to veneration of the Virgin, if I say that thanks to the same pop singer there is a fad for naming babies who will likely grow up without ever hearing a rosary or knwoing what the Immaculate Conception means, "Lourdes" or "Madonna"?

Joy

[c matt]

I think that all Joy meant was that the decidedly well established Benedictine Spirituality is becoming currently popular among those who may not have been previously aware of it. Thus, she is not saying Benedictine spirituality is a fad; she is only saying it is currently popular with a new group with whom it was not previously associated. Like rich white liberals suddenly taking up swahili.

[c matt]

Or, to be fair to Todd's sensibilities, yuppie post VII neocons taking up Latin Mass.

[Patrick Sweeney]

The Wisconsin State Journal certainly presents the "fish out of water" and faddish aspect of this - a female Protestant minister becoming a Benedictine sister? It's like a 72-year-old grandmother who wins drag racing competitions. "What would the pope[sic] think." That's giddy. The conceit here is that the Pope ought to take notice.

It must have been an interesting meeting of the chapter when the change took place: "All those in favor of changing ourselves from 'Catholic' to 'Ecumenical' raise your hands."

Is this what the spirituality of St. Benedict has come to -- pride in their aloofness from the Catholic Church?

[Todd]

Peace, all.

So the insult is more directed at liberals. Still matter for CCC 2478. Still lots of sniping over people "unlike us," as the mantra goes. Liberals would tend to be just as involved in the spiritual life as conservatives, and active people versus passive people, too. I guess I don't see the point in belittling people over something beyond the direct experience of the person critiquing. How about just doing as Amy did, saying, "Hmm," and doing a little research on it. Protestants uncover monasticism, explore the sacraments, and adopt all other sorts of post-conciliar Catholic stuff like Lectionaries, and people are looking for the dark cloud. Think well of others ...

[Joyfully Hopeful]

"So the insult is more directed at liberals."

So now saying someone has taken up as fad is an "insult" to him? It is no longer a possibly anti-Catholic remark at which you're bridling, but an anti-Protestant one?

As I said, you seem to be looking for something to take offense at.

But you might as well be accurate, the insult, if insult there be, was directed at "liberal Protestant clergy."

I take it you are a liberal whose sensibilities were wounded? I'm pretty liberal myself. I wish you well, and hope you manage to grow a thickier skin, anyone looking for offense where none was intended is going to go thorugh life unhappy (although I guess there is some pleasure to be had in victimhood, so many people aspire to it.)

(And I didn't say it, I quoted it, C Matt. But I think you have a handle on the original poster's intentions, if i may be so bold as to read minds.)

Whom am I insulting if I say I have noticed a fad for birettas among newly ordained conservative priests?

Catholics? Traditionalists? Clergy? Hat makers?

Fad is not a dirty word.
All enthusiams are not deep and permanent.
That doesn't necessarily reflect badly on either the object of the enthusiasm or the enthuser.
True love is better than a crush, but most of us have had the latter, no? Though I guess there are some very serious, focused souls who never had the pleasure. I feel sorry for them.

[michigancatholic]

Well, b, it might not be any of anybody else's business except the community, but that would only be true if this group NEVER postures itself as a loyal Catholic group and uses that posture to gain $$$$$, attention, the right to teach anything, etc.

Portraying itself as a Catholic organization to innocent Catholics for the sake of authority or donations would be a fraud.

[michigancatholic]

Todd, give it up. This has nothing to do with politics (liberal, conservative, etc.)

It's about the fact that a group is pretending to be a Catholic religious order while taking in non-catholics as members. AND there is all the language of denial of the faith in this story.

This group is bordering on fraud if it asks for donations from Catholic poeple vis a vis "support the religious order."

[michigancatholic]

Gee, if this works for them, may be I can:
1) gather up all my friends, protestant, pagan, atheist and otherwise
2) allow that all of them can "attend the liturgies of their choice, no questions asked"
3) put out MY shingle for donations from all the innocent Catholics out there who think religious orders ARE religious orders.

[b]

Dear c-matt,

You wrote: "Like rich white liberals suddenly taking up swahili."

The Vatican must be listening to you. Have you noticed that all of the
Vatican II docs are now online in Swahili? This is not a joke. Here is the famous sentence at the beginning of SC 10 about source and summit: "Hata hivyo Liturujia ni kilele ambapo kazi ya Kanisa inaelekea, na papo hapo ni chemchemi zinamotoka nguvu zake zote."

The Holy Spirit must be moving in East Africa!

[amy]

Provocative hostility and willful, obtuse ignorance have no place here. So a couple of you might consider taking yourself and those qualities you so brilliantly exhibit in your comments elsewhere.

"Am I being anti-Semitic (or anti-mystic) to say that thanks to a certain pop singer Cabala is a fad in Hollywood? "

Um, surely you jest? Is this a joke? Kabbalah is at issue - it's not a person, it's a Jewish mystical system, and certainly, a version of it has become faddish among some, but you can't even hope to speak of it intelligently unless you know what it is. So don't bother. Please.