Lumen Gentium Chapter 6 Commentary

Read Lumen Gentium

Study Questions:

1. If the religious state is not a state “in between” the lay state and the ordained priesthood, what role does it play in the Body of Christ?
2. What is the value of the evangelical counsels within the religious state?
3. What is the relationship between religious orders and the hierarchical authority of the Church?
4. How does the Council suggest that the religious state not be alienated from their fellowmen or useless citizens of the “earthly city”?

It surprises people to find out that members of religious orders are considered laity. Many people think of religious brothers and sisters as part of the Church hierarchy somewhere between the laity and the ordained. There can be no denying that religious orders have played a very significant and unique role in history and in the Church. Nevertheless, the vocation of those called to religious orders is in essence the same as the vocation of the laity.

I described the vocation of the laity in the commentary for chapter 5. The ordained are called to make the laity holy, and the laity is called to make the world holy. All members of the Church follow the three-fold mission of Christ (priest, prophet, and king) in their own ways. While the ordained primarily fulfill this mission of Christ in ministry (governance) to the Church, the laity exercises it primarily in the world. All members of the Church are also called to live out the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity, and obedience) in their own way. Again, the ordained are called to live out these virtues in service to the Church while these virtues lead the laity to proper use of created goods, and therefore to sanctify created goods. So religious brothers and sisters are called like the laity to exercise the three-fold mission of Christ within the secular world in order to make the world holy, and to live out the evangelical councils for the proper use and the sanctification of created goods. So what is the difference between those in religious orders and the laity that warrants the religious to merit their own chapter in a Sacred Constitution? In the common language of the Church, it is a difference of degree, not of kind.

The amazing men and women who are called by God to dedicate their lives to a religious order show the laity the perfection of the lay vocation. Most members of the laity live lives of distraction. We struggle to find time to pray, to serve the poor, to read the Bible. When we are successfully living out our vocation, we overcome these distractions or we bring Christ into them. However, even in the best of times we are immersed in a fallen world. Holiness is not impossible, but perfection is elusive. It is easy for us to lose track of what is truly important and to become overly concerned with cares of this world. Members of religious orders avoid this problem by removing themselves a little from the distractions of the secular world, and by living in community to give and gain mutual support. They therefore stand as a model for us.

God does not expect the laity to adopt a religious lifestyle in order to be holy. Rather, within the secular lifestyle the laity can look at the religious and be reminded what it is that Christ’s grace moves us toward. Their model of purity of purpose helps us to keep our own vocation pointed in the right direction. Religious brothers and sisters remind us of the goal in a world that could easily draw us into sin, or toward secular concerns and away from our treasures in heaven.

Now wait a second. How can we claim that cloistered orders live the lay vocation in the secular world? Don’t they do just the opposite by secluding themselves from the secular world? Actually, this is not at all the case. As individuals, each member of the Church is called to participate in all three aspects of Christ’s mission – priest, prophet and king – but each of us is called to do so in a unique way. Within our unique vocation, we are each called to live out a different “mix” of these three missions. For example, as a teacher I am participating more actively in Christ’s prophetic mission than my wife, who is a pharmacist. Each of us is called to our own peculiar concentration of the three missions. The same is true of religious orders. While all religious orders participate in all three aspects of Christ’s mission, different religious orders give prominence to the priestly, prophetic, or kingly mission. Some religious orders have “charisms” that emphasize Christ’s prophetic mission – they teach or perform other services of preaching. Other religious orders are given charisms that emphasize the kingly mission – they work in hospitals, homeless shelters, or in other services that reveal Christ’s love to the world. Some religious orders are given charisms that emphasize the priestly mission. Cloistered orders often have such charisms. Their work is to pray for the secular world and to offer it to God.

The religious do not separate themselves from the secular world in order to become alien to it. They separate themselves form the secular world in order to be a beacon showing what it could be. Being a member of the laity is not less important than being a religious. Religious orders model the perfection of Christ’s grace. The laity has the task of bringing the secular world toward that perfection. They do so with the help and support of religious men and women who dedicate their lives to living out the mission of Christ more intensely in order to show us the way.

This balance between solidarity with the secular world and separateness from it is clearly displayed in the controversy over religious habits. Orders that stopped wearing the habits did so in order to clarify the role of the religious – to show that religious orders are not ordained and that they are not some alien form of separateness, but that they are part of the laity. The problem is that in removing their separateness, they lost their distinctiveness. They lost their ability to model the power of Christ’s grace. The laity therefore lost a very important beacon toward the truth, and we have suffered for its loss. The challenge laid before religious orders by the Second Vatican Council has yet to be met. That challenge is to find the balance. How can religious orders keep their distinctiveness in order to show the laity the perfection possible through grace, but also keep their solidarity so that the laity knows that perfection is attainable?