Don't get the idea I'm jumping on you, nancyann - first and foremost, I don't do personal attack, don't like it, don't like the ramblings of those who think it the handiest tool in their kit. Opinions, assertions, allegations, statements, positions, propositions, arguments, and/or the manner, style, or substance of the presentation of same are alltogether a different matter, from time to time dealt with by me somewhat less genteely. I acknowledge I play hard, once in a while very hard, but I do endeavor to observe the rules. I may - very likely will - hammer on what you say or how you say it, but I won't hammer on you the person.
Now, that outta the way, the ebullience your writing conveys imparts to your presentation a certain quality - sorta like "trying too hard", along with a youthful innocence bordering on disingenuousness (I get a mental picture resembling Sister Mary Patrick, Kathy Najimi's character in the
Sister Act movies) - nothing really untoward with any of that
per se, just a personal, and entirely subjective, observation, coupled with a bit of conjecture and projection. Given the media-focussed overall philosophy and practice of the Paulines - the Vatican's ad agency, so to speak, I found the style you employed unexpected to say the least, given the context from within which you presented it
No reason in the world I couldn't be wrong - I mean, after all, I gotta figure that's bound to happen sooner or later
:wink: .... Why, just the other day, I momentarily believed I'd made an error, only to discover on further reflection that hadn't heen the case
<insert rimshot here>
OK - levity aside, we'll stipulate your sincere enthusiasm, and I'll apologize for any pejoration you may have inferred therefrom and/or for any other discomfort brought you by my (characteristic of me) indellicately bluntly phrased opinion . Might as well stipulate my sincere sceptisism too, while we're at it, just for the sake of full upfront disclosure. Neither is relevant to where I'm going here.
Actually, I have a strong admiration for those of the Pauline Community and in particular admire the Order's immersion into and interaction with the secular wolrld. I find your professed station intriguing ... as you mentioned earlier, living the religious life in one's own home as opposed to within a monastic setting imposes challenges all of its own. Good for you for rising to the occasion, and please accept my sincerest wish you may continue to do so in all happiness and fulfilment.
I have little direct knowledge of women within the Pauline Order, nor of their role. I have even less familiarity with the extra-monastic religious life you have undertaken. A question arises - In your intoductory post, you pretty well covered how you deal with Canons 662 - 666, as pertain to the Obligations and Rights of Institutes and of their Members. I'm curious, however - and just that, curious, nothing more - as to in what manner you in your own house have seen to compliance with Canon 667 §1, that there be set aside "
... an enclosure appropriate to the character and mission of the institute" ... "
always to be reserved to the members alone" . If not an invasion of your privacy, I wonder if you could tell me whether you have in your own home a "public", or "common" area, set off from which is a specific, doored room reserved per the requirements of 667 §1, or if you have something more along the lines of a shrine or other iconic display, visible to and at least ostensibly publically accessible from the general dwelling area, and perhaps tell me also something of the nature of that shrine or enclosure.