I began this post as a comment under "Commune Lite." I have moved it here due to its length.
Monica,
Firstly, allow me to say that your concerns are well rooted and eminently practical (something I am not at all). They are, perhaps, too practical for this idealist stage of pure speculation. The "what" and the "why" precede the "how." Nevertheless, I will - hesitantly - try to make some answer, as I am able at this point.
You write,
"If we had to leave, how could we possibly do it without being financially ruined?"I suppose I may be revealing economic ignorance by admitting I don't understand this question. If some have to leave, they'll have to get new jobs, just like if they have to leave where they are now. If they leave the community, it has less people to provide for - therefore less need of their financial support. Perhaps you are talking about retirement savings?
Possibly, the community could set up a kind of "CRA" (community retirement account). This would have the advantage of commanding a higher interest rate due to its higher balance. If members leave the community, they could take with them the money they put in during their membership plus the interest it has earned. In this way, as long as they live in the community, ownership is common; should they choose to leave, they could revert to private ownership. Again, perhaps I am revealing economic ignorance?
You write,
"How do we solve differences of opinion in the 'outside world' factor?"It is absolutely certain that differences of opinion regarding this and many other issues will surface on a regular basis. Undeniably, entering the community involves self-sacrifice. Such differences should be settled in the chapter room, wherein the community regularly meets to discuss its affairs in all charity. Ultimately and ideally, our bishop would govern these meetings. Many issues could be resolved democratically. But, the individual would have to sacrifice certain of his own desires to continue living in the community. We all would benefit from this. We all could be more humble.
You write,
"How do we solve the church question?"
This is the most important of your concerns, I believe. The community must form around the Church. It must begin and end with the Church. Without the Church's approval and endorsement, we are nothing. It may be that the Church refuses us as quacks. Let us submit to her wisdom, then. So be it. It may be that the Church does indeed endorse a community seeking to live the apostolic way. Let us submit to her wisdom, then too. So be it.
You write,
"If this ever works out we would probably just have to go to the church of our choice in the closest town"
This is not what I envision. As I say, I believe we should begin with the Church. I believe the community should attend one church of one rite or the other. If we are not common in prayer, then there is no reason for us to be a community. A bi-ritual community, while possible, would be confused. The different Churches even follow different calendars. It would be quite awkward for some members of the community to be fasting while others are feasting. The community must be as one. In prayer above all things, it must be as one.
For the sake of unity in prayer, the community must begin with the Church. If we "buy houses on the same block," as Dave suggests, the church should already be on that block.
I have already done this. I already live somewhat like Dave suggests. My beloved wife, son, and I live in a semi-common situation with Dusty - retaining private ownership. We live next to our parish church, to which we give ten-percent of our income. The parish uses these funds, in part, to maintain common buildings, such as a community hall where we share meals with the parish two or three times a week and a school building that it seeks to renovate and turn into a school. It is, as Dave often points out, fun. If others wish to join us, many houses are for sale in the neighborhood.
But I hope for something more than this. I hope, but do not unwaveringly expect.
9 comments:
I know I am crazy at this point, but I too want more than what we have now. Of course I fight with the idea of becoming a nun or not so I know that my vision is different than others (especally those who are married). I want the ability to work along side of my fellow Cathoic women (I hate doing house work alone). I also want to have the wonderful wisdom of the community w/o having our daily problems and conserns keeping us apart. I envision a comunity that shares most of the daily problems and handles them together!
The thought of what happens apon leaving is a good question. One that I and John have recently spoke on. I am not sure if there is a really good answer. Anytime you dovote yourself 100% to something, you risk losing 100%. However, is it worth it if you do not totally invest? Maybe for most that is a yes...
I agree with John, the "outside" factor should be regulated by the bishiop. It seems to me we cannot totally cut ourselves off, we will still have family on the "outside" as well as friends.
One idea that we could do with the Church rite would also be to have the rite that we have a priest for. If we only have Roman priests that want to be a part of the community then we may have to have Roman. If we have another then that is what we have. At that point we could decide if we want that or should the idea be dropped. I see it as kind of like moving to a new area. If the only church around has the Maronite Cathoic Church then I would have to decide if I was going to become part of the church or not move. Sometimes we need to take what is avalible... If more than one are then I am not sure what to do. That is a problem all its own.
John forced me to post this. In fact, I'm not typing this. I'm sitting on the chair, filing my nails.
I think Monica means that the money used to purchase the property will be tied up in the property. If someone left the community, the community would have to buy that person's portion of the property from them. Ideally, the community would have enough liquid assets to do this.
As far as a bi-ritual community goes, living together with a bunch of friends because you like each other isn't the same as living in community. Living and worshipping in common is the purpose of a community
Not all orders have a chapter room in which to settle differences. The Jesuits have a purely hierarchical system of governance.
It is true that my concerns are probably too practical for this stage in the game. I understand this and I really don't want to sound like I have rejected the idea. I have not.
Actually, the least of my concerns have to do with rite. It may be unfortunate, but I am most preoccupied with finances and worldly interaction. Perhaps I should have waited to bring these issues up.
What I was talking about with finances revolves around ownership. If we have no private assets coming out of the community (our house, car, etc being property of the commune), that will make it much harder to buy another house. It would be like starting all over again. At the same time, if we left and could not find another family to replace us, that would put a financial burden on the community as a whole. There are solutions to this besides private ownership- aka we're just out of luck with no credit, assets, or money, and we have to build from the ground up again. I'm not such a fan of this. But as Katie said, if the commune could and would buy us out, then it wouldn't be a problem.
As far as worldly interaction, I do feel that we have some obligation to be out in the world. This is most easily solved by just having a job, so it might not even be a problem for me. However, I have no intention at this time of keeping my children from the good that society has to offer. For example, I would want to take them to the library, plays, and other activities that I deem fit and could not be found at the commune. All of this could be settled though.
As far as rite, this really is the least of my concerns and you have offered good solutions already.
I promise to not burden the idea stage of the commune with the practical issues again. These can be discussed at another time down the road. Forgive me if I have rained on the parade. I am still on board and am willing to entertain all ideas.
Katie is right that property is the central financial issue. If a family who has lived in the community for many years must move, it is reasonable that they not be required to give up all their assets. Without any possessions of their own, then that family must rely on the willingness AND ability of the rest of the families to provide for them. However, if there is private ownership of the primary residence, then that property could be sold, ideally back to the community or to a new family who shared the ideals of the group, but if that is not possible, to someone else.
Another possibility is for everyone to be issued shares in the community as in a corporation, and these shares would be sold back to the group based on a fair appraisal of all property. The chief problem with this is that purchasing back shares could ruin the community if there weren't enough liquid assets--and further, it would be difficult to determine how and when to issue shares to new members.
A big reason for living in community in the first place is that we don't want to think about this kind of thing. Worrying about money is a troublesome distraction from the practice of Christian virtue. Personally, I would be happy to entrust my assets to a group fund, but there are certain advantages to keeping individual homes as private possessions (at least in a legal sense). Besides the tax advantages, I think that this limited extent of private ownership would actually reduce the community's need to worry about money, because our finances would be simpler and the need of a family to leave would not be so disruptive.
Not much to type now, but I should add that the parish situation that John describes in Indianapolis is an enviable one. I have no idea how we would find anything even approaching that here in Cincinnati, although we are looking.
I meant, not much TIME to type now.
I had to leave off early-ish because I was typing at the library yesterday. I'm responding to the second part of Katie's comment.
I'm not sure if the scolding tone was intended or just transcribed, but I assure you that I know what the meaning and intent of this commune would be. I was only trying to raise what John has termed an "excellent concern." I know that church and worship would be the center of this community, but the last time I checked priests, bi-ritual or otherwise, are in low supply and not easily dispatched to a group of 50 people who have little intention of interacting with others. Further, building or buying a church sounds quite expensive. Hence my suggestion to go to a church in the nearest town until we can find a priest and afford to build or buy a building suitable for a church.
And yes, I understand that we wouldn't want to just live with a bunch of people we like and have common interests with. Heaven forbid. First, we must make the goal much harder to ever achieve or attain by adding complex financial matters and even more complex ideological principles.
But I have said too much already and have promised to save pragmatic and practical matters for a later stage in the game. Forgive my inquiries if they seem too negative or bellicose. I am only trying to honestly find out whether a community like this would be right for me and my family. I would rather remove or accept the possibility in the early stages instead of go along with the idea for years until it becomes a reality and then back out. But I realize that this leads to hard questions in a stage where there are (with good reason) few answers.
Dear Monica,
I misunderstood your suggestion -given as it was in conjuction with the problem of our different rites - to mean that the members of the community would attend the church of their individual choice in the nearest town. I absolutely agree that the community should form around and in an already existing parish. Also, it strikes me that a community might do better in the town with the church - better yet, in the neighborhood.
Perhaps the community should not be all that much more separate from the outside world than we are now. "In the world but not of the world."
No one is suggesting that there is anything wrong with living "with a bunch of people we like and have common interests with." Katie's point, I believe, was that this is not all there is to living in community. "Sharing all things in common" implies more than this. If a person is not called to live in community but to simply live with people they like, then so be it.
None of us want anything but the best for you and your family. We love you.
This blog is not necessarily the beginning of a community. It is place for discussing the ideal of Christian community.
Post a Comment