In Reply to: Re: Saint Francis posted by Mr. Don on January 14, 2006 at 06:48:07:
I made the vows of a franciscan tertiary in 1983. (My religious name is Carol Francis of the Cross, kind of like my COG name was Jacinth Song.) There are actually three franciscan traditions or orders, although popular culture such as Zefferelli's movie generally knows only about the friars and cloistered nuns. The third order are ordinary lay people, some of whom are married and some of whom have formed celibate congregations. The third order is widely known for its apostolates in teaching, nursing, and social work with the poor.
I used to have an extensive library of franciscan source material--there's one major compendium that was compiled by franciscan scholars and I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head, but I think it contains an English translation of Fiorelli, which is one of the earliest biographies written. I gave much of my franciscan library away after leaving the RC church in 1993.
Anyhoo, I hung onto the classics, and I highly recommend Francis and Clare: The Complete Works, in the Classics of Western Spirituality series by Paulist Press. (Armstrong & Brady, eds.) If you don't cite this as a source, bro, I'm going to have difficulty acknowledging you researched your topic with much rigor using translated source material.
My personal favorite of the contemporary interpretations of francsican source material is Leonardo Boff's (1986) St. Francis: A Model of Human Liberation. This is a good introduction of liberation theology through the lens of franciscan spirituality. You'll probably view liberation theology as "political," but I can't imagine getting through your program without some mention of it. Key phrase or "buzz" words for liberation theology: "preferential option for the poor."
When one advocates for the poor, there are always political implications. Some people see the issue as one of asking at whose door to lay the sin of poverty and violence: Is the sin that of society--particularly those who are priviledged by birth or good fortune by access to resources; or does the sin lay at the feet of the poor themselves, as in "the poor have poor ways" or "the poor are lazy and just don't want to work" or "the culture of poverty."
Actually I believe both conditions are true, but that we (popular civic culture) have put so much emphasis on personal responsbility that we (as an affluent society) have become blind to our collective responsibility to empower and raise up the poor--not just in this country, but throughout the world. (Whether one can empower and raise up the poor through violence is a huge debate, btw. I fall on the side of nonviolent struggle.)
Well, if I yack on too far down this line, I'll be accused of being too political, because yes, there are political implications in my assertion (from the conviction of Christian conscience) that society has a duty to care for and empower its weakest, most alienated, and disenfranchised members. It is even more political to assert that the social order (the System) is as responsible for the disparaties as the poor themselves. How we go about doing the empowerment, economic enfranchisement, and social reconciliation of the poor and other outcasts can be political, social, and/or purely charitable.
However, I would deny that it is political to hold a conviction of conscience about "our" duty to reconcile economic and social disparities in a just society. And I see the call to repentance for our collective and personal sins of greed, violence, and exploitation of the weak as the true nature prophetic ministry.
I emphasize these aspects of our faith because I am a Christian trained in the tradition of St. Francis.