 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 273 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2007 09:57 pm |
|
| Ok in my reading or St. Terese's auto biography she has one section about her giving up being friends with another novice. She describes how they are close friends and love to discuss spiritual things or even muindane things but she tells the girl she can no longer talk to her because she feels it is wrong to have friends. Am I misunderstanding what she is saying? Since when is having friends wrong? What is sinful about caring about a friend in this world? I had read that at one time all nuns were not allowed to have friends but how is this sinful? isn't our human nature to enjoy the company of others and some more than others?
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 10 months and 17
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1792 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2007 10:57 pm |
|
This giving up friendship thing is not for everyone, Becky. I’ve investigated several spiritual traditions over the years, and the ones that suggest it are the most austere of contemplative orders (like the Carmelites, St. Therese’s order). They have set their sights higher than the rest. By the way, it has never been true that “all nuns were not allowed to have friends.” There was a period from the 17th to the 19th centuries when many religious orders (not all, but many) thought it a good idea, but most of them have since abandoned it as inappropriate for their vocation and charism.
So what’s with these people? Why should it be necessary to abandon a friendship? It’s a question of attachment, not of sin. If a person is an aspirant to the highest reaches of union with God, he will not be successful until he has let loose of everything created, including his friendship with other people. This does not mean he has to stop being friends, but that he has to stop allowing the friendships he has to become a barrier between him and God. If you’re married to God, you don’t want to be running around with others; that would be like bigamy.
Friendship a barrier to God? Well, we tend to favor our friends. We go to them whenever we need something, especially when we need companionship. But if I want to be an intimate friend of God, I have to let creaturely attachments go. He is the one I should be going to, not other creatures.
Obviously, for most people this is just too much. Married couples could not function in their vocation if they were to follow this path. Assuredly, it is the province of a very few who seek to conquer all their earthly attachments and be with God alone.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2007 11:06 pm |
|
This makes me think, oddly enough, of Martin Luther's hymn, "A Mighty Fortress." In one phrase it says, "Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also. The body they may kill. God's truth abideth still. His kingdom is forever. Perhaps Luther was thinking about abandoning all when he wrote this hymn. Just a thought.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 02:22 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: This giving up friendship thing is not for everyone, Becky. I’ve investigated several spiritual traditions over the years, and the ones that suggest it are the most austere of contemplative orders (like the Carmelites, St. Therese’s order). They have set their sights higher than the rest. By the way, it has never been true that “all nuns were not allowed to have friends.” There was a period from the 17th to the 19th centuries when many religious orders (not all, but many) thought it a good idea, but most of them have since abandoned it as inappropriate for their vocation and charism.
So what’s with these people? Why should it be necessary to abandon a friendship? It’s a question of attachment, not of sin. If a person is an aspirant to the highest reaches of union with God, he will not be successful until he has let loose of everything created, including his friendship with other people. This does not mean he has to stop being friends, but that he has to stop allowing the friendships he has to become a barrier between him and God. If you’re married to God, you don’t want to be running around with others; that would be like bigamy.
Friendship a barrier to God? Well, we tend to favor our friends. We go to them whenever we need something, especially when we need companionship. But if I want to be an intimate friend of God, I have to let creaturely attachments go. He is the one I should be going to, not other creatures.
Obviously, for most people this is just too much. Married couples could not function in their vocation if they were to follow this path. Assuredly, it is the province of a very few who seek to conquer all their earthly attachments and be with God alone.
David
Not only do I think this is not for all, but I hope that for many it would be discouraged. I think most are called to love God AND people. I know that we can love them without being attached to them and we can pray for them etc. But James says if we see a brother in need and say 'be warm and well fed' but do not help him and that we are not living by faith. To me friendship properly understood is not about attachment but mutual respect, support and charity, helping one another in pursuit of holiness. And if we happen to bond or enjoy it, I do not see this as a hindrance to one's relationship to God.
Indeed, are these same people discouraging fellowship with Mary and the saints? NO. They would affirm the role that these saints have in our fellowship and bond of love with God. We are family. To me if the saints in heaven help us, so may the saints on earth. We all need confessors and community. The desert Fathers needed someone on occasion to sort things through with.
I think it is more an issue of what is good and necessary and beneficial to each soul. To some that may mean having one friend, to someone 100 friends, and to others zero friends.
Perhaps how we are defining friends is part of the problem. I know Jesus called us His friends, and I am sure the apostles being friends with Jesus were friends with eachother. I feel like we are engaged in friendly dialogue on this forum. Why is this not an unhealthy attachment or preference? Is it because this is a ministry as well? But isn't all that we do to the glory of God?
I find it hard not to confuse being friendly with having friends. But what I would want to affirm is that all earthly attachemtns that hinder us spritually we should seek to free ourselves from even if these are people. But I am of the persuasion that holy and healthy friendships only help us restore the image of God in our mind and teach us more about His love, and that we being a body indeed need some intimate contact with one another in order to truly be Christians.
So I agree that you are saying that this path is not for all, but I would want to contend (though I may be wrong) that it should be discouraged for many, and that it may very well not be the highest or most ideal goal for them. I mean, if it is a matter of calling and only for some, how could it be somehow better? If part of my vocation is to be married or have friends how could me following what God has for me lead me to less holiness than what was desirable? I would think each person needs to become as holy as they can within their vocation and that for some the intimacy with God may seem greater, they are not better people or more accurately following God, even if their union with Him is greater in some way. They could not exist without the rest of us supporting them in our ways. I would think we are equally pleasing to God and accountable to what we are personally called to, and that all are called in any path to be free from unnecessary and unhealthy attachments.
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1268 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 03:17 pm |
|
| Brian, this is just my opinion and I am still near the beginning of my journey, but I think God has a path for each of us that is as unique as our DNA and fingerprints. Each of us comes from a unique beginning, even siblings from the same family. We are all called to serve in different and unique ways. It doesn't mean that one is better or higher than another. I think of what Mother Angelica was able to accomplish because she listened to the Lord and followed what He said, and actually He accomplished it through her. But there were thousands of people who contributed money, time, and support and without them, in the background, it wouldn't have been done. Each one had a purpose at a certain time. And so do we, if it's a vocation in marriage to create and sustain a holy family, or in the priesthood or as a religious. They are all needed to help spread the gospel and witness to this world we live in that seems to be spiraling into oblivion. Carmelites devote a great deal of time to prayer for the good of the world. It's not a higher calling than a mother who raises nine godly children who then go out and continue spreading the faith. The same could be said for a father who day in and day out goes to a job to provide for his family, or for a priest who sacrifices himself to provide sacraments to us all. Sorry to go on so long! But I think there is a big need for religious orders who pray night and day for you and me, and the rest of the world. Different orders have different rules, but the thing about not having close friends is that they depend on God more by depending less on those around them. It doesn't mean they are uncharitable. Last edited on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 03:19 pm by Credo Catholic
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
David said it succinctly when he described this friendlessness as "detachment".
Therese's entrance into the convent was a terrible wrench because this view of people as earthly attachments was part of the package. A cloistered, contemplative nun's sole purpose is prayer and union with God. Everything else is a distraction.
The pain Therese felt at separating from her father and her father's pain were due to this knowledge. Therese was signing up for never seeing her father or anyone on the outside again. Friendships on the inside would logically follow this same path to perfection.
This is not to say that nuns are not expected to continue to love their family or the nuns with whom they live.
Obviously this is a special calling. Compared to a hermit, this too is a very unusual calling, but it happens.
The purpose of detaching oneself from people is not an escape but a sacrifice and special calling. Its logical to see that the more we love our fellow man, the better a detached-and-devoted-to-God-being we will be.
The lesson here is that real love has to include detachment from everything that is not God.
YEOW!!
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1792 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11th, 2007 12:55 am |
|
A while back I said,
Why should it be necessary to abandon a friendship? It’s a question of attachment, not of sin. If a person is an aspirant to the highest reaches of union with God, he will not be successful until he has let loose of everything created, including his friendship with other people. This does not mean he has to stop being friends, but that he has to stop allowing the friendships he has to become a barrier between him and God.
It appears that I have been misunderstood at least a little. I am not talking here of love of our fellow man (what the older authors call fraternal charity); this is commanded by God, and it is a sin not to love in this way. My reference in this thread is to what used to be called “particular friendships.” What does this mean? Being “special friends” with a particular person, “needing” that person as a foil and a crutch. Basically, it is a situation of attachment, not really of charity.
Why are attachments so detrimental to our union with God? St. John of the Cross tells us in book 1, chapter 11 of his Ascent of Mount Carmel. His reference to “friendships” occurs toward the end of §5.
I may not understand what he means; I may not understand how a particular friendship is an “attachment.” But I must say that I have found his general statement about attachments to be true in my own life. And if attachments in one area of life are detrimental, it seems that the same is true of attachments in other areas as well.
Darlene wrote:This makes me think, oddly enough, of Martin Luther's hymn, "A Mighty Fortress."
Not odd at all. Luther was a monk; he had been trained in the discipline concerning attachments. He understood why St. Paul could write, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race” (Romans 9:3).
brian wrote:Perhaps how we are defining friends is part of the problem.… To me friendship properly understood is not about attachment but mutual respect, support and charity, helping one another in pursuit of holiness. And if we happen to bond or enjoy it, I do not see this as a hindrance to one's relationship to God.
There is a lot of truth to this. Compare this healthy kind of friendship to the “particular friendship” mentioned above. Are they the same thing? I think not. The particular friendship is unhealthy and unholy, a hindrance even on the natural level. If a healthy friendship is formed (and there are lots of such friendships among the saints — St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross; St. Francis de Sales and St. Jeanne de Chantal; St. Vincent de Paul and St. Louise de Marillac; the Seven Founders of the Servites; etc.), it does not embody an attachment and is therefore exempt from this prohibition.
Credo Catholic wrote:Carmelites devote a great deal of time to prayer for the good of the world. It's not a higher calling than a mother who raises nine godly children who then go out and continue spreading the faith.
Theologians will tell you that in itself, the contemplative vocation is the highest in dignity. However, they would also agree that being a mediocre contemplative is not even close to being a holy wife and mother. For the contemplative who is remiss and does not purge himself of all attachments is far worse than the wife and mother who is assiduous in prayer and flees attachments, thereby giving her all to husband and children and providing them a holy example.
This is why it is no shame to be seen as a “lesser” member of the body of Christ. For in the end, one can reach the heights of holiness in any role to which God calls him.
Credo Catholic wrote:I think there is a big need for religious orders who pray night and day for you and me, and the rest of the world.
Prayer is much more powerful than we give it credit for, because it invokes the almighty power of God. Those whose vocation is to fast and pray are the hidden dynamo for the accomplishments of others in the world.
I am reminded of an occurrence I read about the other day, in which a group of contemplative nuns was brought into a diocese by the bishop for the express purpose of praying for the lost souls. This was a rather relaxed and decadent region, and a group of traditionalist nuns had formed a schismatic monastery close by where the cloistered nuns took up residence. Soon it became known that a number of the traditionalists were having second thoughts about having left the Church of their spiritual birth. Some months later, the contemplatives having not only fasted and prayed for them but met with them and listened to their complaints and difficulties, the schismatics returned to the Church en masse.
Tina in Ashburn wrote:Therese's entrance into the convent was a terrible wrench because this view of people as earthly attachments was part of the package.
Even young Therese had to learn this lesson of charity without attachment. And it is for this reason that she is today considered one of the greatest saints who ever lived.
Tina in Ashburn wrote:The purpose of detaching oneself from people is not an escape but a sacrifice and special calling.
We do not speak of Jesus as crazy because he allowed himself to be betrayed, arrested, condemned and crucified for our sake. (Many do, but solid Christians do not!) So why do we disapprove of those who would follow Jesus so closely as to share in his sufferings on behalf of his friends?
David
|
|
|
Sindone
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Sindon | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | RC...rc...RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11th, 2007 09:51 am |
|
Dear Becky,
I have read the Story of A Soul many many times, I have non-Christian friend converted simply because of this autobiography. I really love this Saint, she is no extraordinary, and yet it is her ordinariness that makes her so extraordinary.
She has no tastes for physical mortification which was common during her times, so I would not agree that she gave up the friendship with this nun because she thought that having friend is sinful etc. Certainly that is not her thoughts.
If you could remember, you would know that there is a nun in the community whom St Therese referred to as having an improper attachment to peoples (to the Mother Superior or herself). When she realised that this nun's way is different from what she had thought of, she felt the neccesity to tell her that her way was wrong. But instead of cutting off her friendship with this nun, she, one day with all her bravery went up to this nun and tell her kindly that..."it is herself (this nun) that she is loving, ....one should not attach oneself as a dog attach to its master...".
She wrote that "instead of acting like the peoples of the world"...she actually approach this nun with all her kindness to tell her what true love consist.
And later it was said that this nun eventually changed and promised to begin a new life.
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1268 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11th, 2007 11:31 am |
|
| Dear Becky, today is the feast day of St. Benedict, who founded the first religious order for monasticism. You may be able to find some history about him that will help explain the benefits of solitude and limited exchanges with others. It's not meant for us in the everyday world of kids and school and such, but I guess we can learn from it that our focus should be more vertical.
|
|
|
Current time is 09:56 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
