Summary prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP
PERFECTAE CARITATIS (December 1965) presented immense challenges (with unforeseen results)
A - TITLE = Accommodata Renovatio de Religiosis is often mistranslated as “Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life” with “adaptation” referring to externals & “renewal” to internals
B – THE SWEEPING CHALLENGE of Perfectae caritatis 2
= mandated return to the sources/spirit of the religious institute by accommodata renovatio
= used multiple participles…following-preserving-participating-promoting-emphasizing
= asked religious to initiate continuous return (continuum reditum) to two realities
= and explicitly called for adjustment (aptationem ipsorum) re: these two specific realities
REDITUM to the 1ST REALITY encompassed all the sources of Christian Life AND
REDITUM to the 2ND REALITY encompassed the original inspiration of the institute (leading to)
APTATIONEM IPSORUM (↑↑) to changed conditions of times (mutates conditions temporum) with a continuum reditum = not limited to “right here, right now” (accomplished) ?HOW? = under the impulse of the HOLY SPIRIT & guidance of the CHURCH
C - FIVE PRINCIPLES for the HOW are articulated in PC 2 (using six participles) as…
1- following PX in Gospels as the supreme rule of life
2- recognizing & preserving the spirit of founders/foundress & particular goals & sound traditions = the entire “PATRIMONY” of an institute (“charism” is not used in PC or in 1983 Code)
3- participating in the life of Church =liturgy, teaching, pastoral, ecumenism, missionary, social-- according to “patrimony”
4- promoting suitable awareness of contemporary human conditions & needs of the Church =in order to assist and to respond to these with zeal
5- emphasizing the primacy of spiritual renewal = since without it even optimas accommodationes to necessities of times will simply fail
E - APPLICATION was extremely comprehensive (especially) in PC 3 (and somewhat in PC 4)suitably combine (ratio…apte conveniat = bring together, unite, join)the manner/plan of living, of praying, of working, of governing and all documents including whatever concerns the nature of the institute, apostolic needs, cultural demands, social and economic circumstances, so that
(A) the living-praying-working-governing will be more in keeping with
(B) the needs of apostolate-culture-economics & THEREFORE, chapters are
***(C) to bring all documents into accord with the documents of Vatican II
***(D) by suppressing what is obsolete (suppressis quae obsoleta sint) AND
***(E) by prudently renewing all legislation under direction competent authority (= general chapters with approval or Bishop or of Apostolic See) AND
***(F) superiors are to listen to all members with all members participating while placing hope of renewal more on diligent observance than multiplication of norms
NOTE: Many religious were simply unprepared (in philosophy-theology-canon law) to alter so many aspects of their life in the timeline for holding renewal chapters (within 2 or 3 years, with 2 sessions possible a year apart). The Curia was equally unprepared to assess the multiple, ongoing constitution revisions. Legal underpinnings provided by constitutions were gradually undermined. Vigilance/oversight by bishops & Curia were often overbearing or lacking. And unexpected events here & abroad greatly influenced renewal. [See Ann Carey, Sisters in Crisis (OSV, Huntington, IN, 1997); Sr. Elizabeth McDonough, OP, “Juridical Deconstruction of Religious Institutes,” Studia Canonica 26 (1992) 307-341.]
Monday, April 12, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Introduction - Church Documents
This first blog post on Church documents contains a list of documents relevant to consecrated life. Blog entries that follow will contain summaries of some of these documents (those that have an asterix next to them in the below list). The document name will be the blog title. All of this information was prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL, a Dominican Sister of Our Lady of the Springs of Bridgeport (CT) and is used with her permission. Most of these documents (to 1978) can be found at www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csscrlife/index.htm
(Note from Ann: Sister Elizabeth suggests that sisters read the entries on Contemplative Dimension, Community Life and Vita Consecrata before reading the more technical entries on Lumen Gentium, Perfectae Caritatis and Ecclesiae Sanctae II. The entries are indexed on the right side of the blog page for easy navigation.)
Many different types of documents are issued by the Apostolic See. The title (also known as the incipit) is the first few words of the Latin text (or English, etc.). The importance of a document is identified, in part, by the type of document used and is also identified by the actual content. When the 1st listing of a type of document occurs below, a brief explanation is given.
*Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, dogmatic constitution of Vatican II. Treated consecrated life in ##43-47 in the context of the Church as People of God and the universal call to holiness.
[A dogmatic constitution of an ecumenical council is directed to the entire Church. It has significant theological import and often has legislative consequences because of its content.]
*Perfectae caritatis, 28 October 1965, decree of Vatican II which mandated renewal and adaptation, while urging fidelity to fundamentals, for all aspects of consecrated life.
[A decree of an ecumenical council presents directives and theological background in relation to some segment of the Church, such as bishops or religious or priests or laity.]
*Ecclesiae sanctae, 6 August 1966, motu proprio by Paul VI: Part I, 22-44, new norms for exemption (altered by Christus Dominus); Part II, directives to implement Perfectae caritatis; Part III, 10-12,15-17, 21-22, norms for apostolic activities re: consecrated life.
[A motu proprio is a legislative document issued by the Pope on his own initiative.]
*Evangeligca testificatio, 29 June 1971, apostolic exhortation of Paul VI reflecting on the process-progress-pitfalls of renewal in religious institutes since the close of Vatican II.
[An apostolic exhortation is usually addressed by the Pope to some segment of the Church and (as the title indicates) exhorts or urges readers to consider the matter treated.]
*Religious and Human Promotion, came from the April 1978 plenaria of Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes (SCRIS) and was published March 1980 (along with the document below), contained guidelines and comments for religious in relation to the four major concerns of poverty, social action, work and politics.
[A plenaria occurs when all members of a curial congregation meet in Rome. Some pertinent document often follows.]
*Contemplative Dimension of Religious Life, came from the March 1980 plenaria of SCRIS, and emphasized integration of contemplation for all members of institutes of consecrated life.
Essential Elements, 31 May 1983, was a summary by SCRIS of canons from the Code of Canon Law (promulgated 25 January 1983) which was sent to bishops in the USA along with the papal letter of 3 April 1983 which initiated a study of religious life in the United States.
[This is simple a summary of multiple canons on religious life from the 1983 Code.]
*Redemptionis donum, 25 March 1984, is apostolic exhortation of John Paul II expressing the theology of religious consecration in relation to the mystery of redemption.
*Potissimum institutioni, 2 February 1990, are directives of Congregation for institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL) presenting the theory, principles and norms for various levels and types of formation in religious institutes.
[Directives function, as noted, by giving theory, principles and norms in a particular matter.]
*Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor (On Community Life), 2 February 1994, is an instruction of CICLSAL emphasizing the spiritual bond of hearts united in Christ along with the visible fidelity to life together in religious houses as fostering both communal action and generous service while also witnessing to the importance, blessings, and challenges of community.
[An instruction is directed to those responsible for implementing established norms. They encourage observance and specify in more detail what and how something should be done.]
*Vita Consecrata, 25 March 1996, apostolic exhortation of John Paul II, issued as a result of the Synod on Consecrated Life which was held in 1984.
Inter-Institute Collaboration in Formation, 8 December 1999, instruction of CICLSAL on requirements for formal, cooperative programs among multiple religious institutes.
Starting Afresh from Christ, 14 June 2002, instruction of CICLSAL concerning a renewed commitment to consecrated life in the Church at the beginning of the new millennium.
The Service of Authority and Obedience, 11 May 2008, instruction concerning the integration of responsible obedience and the genuine exercise of authority in religious institutes today.
PostScript – The formal title of the Congregation in the Roman Curia responsible for matters related to religious and other forms of consecrated life has change THREE times since Vatican Council II from the Sacred Congregation for Religious [SCR] to Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes [SCRIS]to Congregation for Institute of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life [CICLSAL]
(Note from Ann: Sister Elizabeth suggests that sisters read the entries on Contemplative Dimension, Community Life and Vita Consecrata before reading the more technical entries on Lumen Gentium, Perfectae Caritatis and Ecclesiae Sanctae II. The entries are indexed on the right side of the blog page for easy navigation.)
Many different types of documents are issued by the Apostolic See. The title (also known as the incipit) is the first few words of the Latin text (or English, etc.). The importance of a document is identified, in part, by the type of document used and is also identified by the actual content. When the 1st listing of a type of document occurs below, a brief explanation is given.
*Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, dogmatic constitution of Vatican II. Treated consecrated life in ##43-47 in the context of the Church as People of God and the universal call to holiness.
[A dogmatic constitution of an ecumenical council is directed to the entire Church. It has significant theological import and often has legislative consequences because of its content.]
*Perfectae caritatis, 28 October 1965, decree of Vatican II which mandated renewal and adaptation, while urging fidelity to fundamentals, for all aspects of consecrated life.
[A decree of an ecumenical council presents directives and theological background in relation to some segment of the Church, such as bishops or religious or priests or laity.]
*Ecclesiae sanctae, 6 August 1966, motu proprio by Paul VI: Part I, 22-44, new norms for exemption (altered by Christus Dominus); Part II, directives to implement Perfectae caritatis; Part III, 10-12,15-17, 21-22, norms for apostolic activities re: consecrated life.
[A motu proprio is a legislative document issued by the Pope on his own initiative.]
*Evangeligca testificatio, 29 June 1971, apostolic exhortation of Paul VI reflecting on the process-progress-pitfalls of renewal in religious institutes since the close of Vatican II.
[An apostolic exhortation is usually addressed by the Pope to some segment of the Church and (as the title indicates) exhorts or urges readers to consider the matter treated.]
*Religious and Human Promotion, came from the April 1978 plenaria of Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes (SCRIS) and was published March 1980 (along with the document below), contained guidelines and comments for religious in relation to the four major concerns of poverty, social action, work and politics.
[A plenaria occurs when all members of a curial congregation meet in Rome. Some pertinent document often follows.]
*Contemplative Dimension of Religious Life, came from the March 1980 plenaria of SCRIS, and emphasized integration of contemplation for all members of institutes of consecrated life.
Essential Elements, 31 May 1983, was a summary by SCRIS of canons from the Code of Canon Law (promulgated 25 January 1983) which was sent to bishops in the USA along with the papal letter of 3 April 1983 which initiated a study of religious life in the United States.
[This is simple a summary of multiple canons on religious life from the 1983 Code.]
*Redemptionis donum, 25 March 1984, is apostolic exhortation of John Paul II expressing the theology of religious consecration in relation to the mystery of redemption.
*Potissimum institutioni, 2 February 1990, are directives of Congregation for institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL) presenting the theory, principles and norms for various levels and types of formation in religious institutes.
[Directives function, as noted, by giving theory, principles and norms in a particular matter.]
*Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor (On Community Life), 2 February 1994, is an instruction of CICLSAL emphasizing the spiritual bond of hearts united in Christ along with the visible fidelity to life together in religious houses as fostering both communal action and generous service while also witnessing to the importance, blessings, and challenges of community.
[An instruction is directed to those responsible for implementing established norms. They encourage observance and specify in more detail what and how something should be done.]
*Vita Consecrata, 25 March 1996, apostolic exhortation of John Paul II, issued as a result of the Synod on Consecrated Life which was held in 1984.
Inter-Institute Collaboration in Formation, 8 December 1999, instruction of CICLSAL on requirements for formal, cooperative programs among multiple religious institutes.
Starting Afresh from Christ, 14 June 2002, instruction of CICLSAL concerning a renewed commitment to consecrated life in the Church at the beginning of the new millennium.
The Service of Authority and Obedience, 11 May 2008, instruction concerning the integration of responsible obedience and the genuine exercise of authority in religious institutes today.
PostScript – The formal title of the Congregation in the Roman Curia responsible for matters related to religious and other forms of consecrated life has change THREE times since Vatican Council II from the Sacred Congregation for Religious [SCR] to Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes [SCRIS]to Congregation for Institute of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life [CICLSAL]
Lumen Gentium
LG CHAPTER V & VI...after Chapters on Mystery, People of God, Hierarchical Constitution, Laity. The following are pertinent excerpts from Lumen Gentium relating directly to religious.
Chapter V...all called to holiness through grace in Church (despite checkered history at times)
#39...holiness in Ecclesia and Ecclesia...indefectabiliter sancta
...not primarily moral perfection but doxa and agape
...Christ ALONE is holy as divine and as human
...each person’s holiness shares in THE ONE holiness of PX through Spirit in Church
...direct ethical consequence of call to holiness is effect in daily life by fruits of Spirit
#40...holy in Lord’s call (Mt 5:48); in Spirit in PX-ns; in share of divine nature; in life of virtue
...PX-n holiness not merely same as asceticism or human moral effort (but sanctification)
...fullness of PX-n life is perfection of charity (grace not necessarily given equally to all)
#41..multiple and diverse means in responding to call to be formed in the ONE holiness (of PX)
...inward, deep prompting/guidance of Spirit PLUS listening & obeying in daily life
...various walks of life--bishops, priests, deacons, laity called to role(s) in apostolate(s)
...and spouses, widows, single PLUS poor, infirm, oppressed
#42...charity as bond of perfection and fullness of the law & fruit of loving operation of grace
...certain “extraordinary” gifts such as martyrdom & “virginity” (likened to martyrdom)
NOTE during the summer of 1965, the original chapter V of LG was divided into chapter V (Holiness) and chapter VI (Religious). Original chapter V was separated at the comment on the state of virginity. Because of this, the order of the counsels appears as chastity-poverty-obedience in Ch VI instead of in the traditional order of poverty-chastity-obedience. LG was promulgated in NOV 1964 and Perfectae Caritatis was promulgated DEC 1965. Official Council records (the Acta Synodalia) show that the order of chastity-poverty-obedience in PC occurred because 441 Council Fathers asked that the order used in PC be the same as that used in Ch VI of LG. Many others preferred retaining the traditional order of poverty-chastity-obedience which was in all previous drafts of PC. The Acta Synodalia notes that separation of the original Ch V of LG at the comment on virginity was merely a convenient transition from Ch V (holiness) to Ch VI (religious). LG does speak of the preeminence of chastity among the evangelical counsels, but the Acta Synodalia makes clear that the order of chastity-poverty-obedience which eventually appeared in PC was not because LG VI had proposed a new theological foundation for the vows.
Chapter VI...religious indispensable/integral to Church; not part of hierarchical structure
...way of life not justified by works/apostolates
...truly intelligible only in terms of mystery of redemption
...connection of personal sanctification to ecclesial role is NOT well addressed
#43...abundance of forms & expressions & communities as gift to Church
...each individual (through life/work in community) contributes to redemptive mission
#44...bind self to observe counsels motivated by love of God, & expressed in service to neighbor
...objective consecration/sanctification AND assignment to service [similar to LG Ch III]
...nature of bonds (firm-stable) effects consecration [notes Medieval notion of vows]
...attests to transcendence, is sign of salvation & is permanent presence in Church
#45...question of “exemption” re: religious and relationship to pastoral authority of bishop
#46...value of “counsels” seen collectively and individually as witness even to unbelievers
#47...religious life when “well-lived” reflects PX as fountain and wellspring of all holiness
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Chapter V...all called to holiness through grace in Church (despite checkered history at times)
#39...holiness in Ecclesia and Ecclesia...indefectabiliter sancta
...not primarily moral perfection but doxa and agape
...Christ ALONE is holy as divine and as human
...each person’s holiness shares in THE ONE holiness of PX through Spirit in Church
...direct ethical consequence of call to holiness is effect in daily life by fruits of Spirit
#40...holy in Lord’s call (Mt 5:48); in Spirit in PX-ns; in share of divine nature; in life of virtue
...PX-n holiness not merely same as asceticism or human moral effort (but sanctification)
...fullness of PX-n life is perfection of charity (grace not necessarily given equally to all)
#41..multiple and diverse means in responding to call to be formed in the ONE holiness (of PX)
...inward, deep prompting/guidance of Spirit PLUS listening & obeying in daily life
...various walks of life--bishops, priests, deacons, laity called to role(s) in apostolate(s)
...and spouses, widows, single PLUS poor, infirm, oppressed
#42...charity as bond of perfection and fullness of the law & fruit of loving operation of grace
...certain “extraordinary” gifts such as martyrdom & “virginity” (likened to martyrdom)
NOTE during the summer of 1965, the original chapter V of LG was divided into chapter V (Holiness) and chapter VI (Religious). Original chapter V was separated at the comment on the state of virginity. Because of this, the order of the counsels appears as chastity-poverty-obedience in Ch VI instead of in the traditional order of poverty-chastity-obedience. LG was promulgated in NOV 1964 and Perfectae Caritatis was promulgated DEC 1965. Official Council records (the Acta Synodalia) show that the order of chastity-poverty-obedience in PC occurred because 441 Council Fathers asked that the order used in PC be the same as that used in Ch VI of LG. Many others preferred retaining the traditional order of poverty-chastity-obedience which was in all previous drafts of PC. The Acta Synodalia notes that separation of the original Ch V of LG at the comment on virginity was merely a convenient transition from Ch V (holiness) to Ch VI (religious). LG does speak of the preeminence of chastity among the evangelical counsels, but the Acta Synodalia makes clear that the order of chastity-poverty-obedience which eventually appeared in PC was not because LG VI had proposed a new theological foundation for the vows.
Chapter VI...religious indispensable/integral to Church; not part of hierarchical structure
...way of life not justified by works/apostolates
...truly intelligible only in terms of mystery of redemption
...connection of personal sanctification to ecclesial role is NOT well addressed
#43...abundance of forms & expressions & communities as gift to Church
...each individual (through life/work in community) contributes to redemptive mission
#44...bind self to observe counsels motivated by love of God, & expressed in service to neighbor
...objective consecration/sanctification AND assignment to service [similar to LG Ch III]
...nature of bonds (firm-stable) effects consecration [notes Medieval notion of vows]
...attests to transcendence, is sign of salvation & is permanent presence in Church
#45...question of “exemption” re: religious and relationship to pastoral authority of bishop
#46...value of “counsels” seen collectively and individually as witness even to unbelievers
#47...religious life when “well-lived” reflects PX as fountain and wellspring of all holiness
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Ecclesiae Sanctae II
ECCLESIAE SANCTAE II, 1966, norms for religious; general chapters primarily responsible (#1); all members consulted & cooperate (##2,4); renewal chapter within 3 years, possibly 2 sessions in 1 year (#3) to approve experiments until ordinary chapter. Restrictions on experimentation: if contrary to universal law, need Vatican approval (#6). Between chapters, general council has faculty to approve experiments; revised constitutions to contain (a) evangelical/theological principles of religious life in Church according to spirit and aims of founder/foundress plus (b) juridical norms to define character, aims and means to accomplish purpose of institute (#12); spiritual & juridical norms to be blended for solid foundation & authentic expression of spirit (#13); outdated items (or purely local application) excluded from primary texts (#14).
ES II reaffirms PC on return to Gospel plus a theological, historical, canonical examination of religious life with genuine understanding of original spirit free from accretions of alien or obsolete elements (#16). Specified that "obsolete" did not refer to the nature and purpose of the institute, but to whatever had lost its meaning or was no longer of genuine assistance (#17). Reaffirmed need for members to have effective roles and urged that exercise of authority be more efficacious by lessening recourse to higher superiors (#18). Renewal continually fostered to be eventually efficacious (#19).
Specifics for changes introduced by PC. Divine Office strongly recommended to share more intimately in Church's liturgical life (#20). Mental prayer to be a priority over other forms (#22). New forms of penance encouraged (#22). New means to promote spirit & practice of evangelical poverty for institutes and individual members (##23 and 24). A certain flexibility mandated in expressions of common life: free time and recreation available in addition to customary spiritual exercises and apostolic activities (#26). Formation tailored to specific character of each institute (#33) and should continue formally after initial profession (#35). Formation to include practical as well as theoretical aspects (#36) while carefully maintaining the proper character of each institute as such (#37). Specific circumstances noted warranting suppression or joining of existing institutes, namely, small number of members and lack of new candidates and advanced age (##40 & 41). Reaffirmed necessity for freedom of choice, individual consultation and overriding charity in suppression or consolidation (#41).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
ES II reaffirms PC on return to Gospel plus a theological, historical, canonical examination of religious life with genuine understanding of original spirit free from accretions of alien or obsolete elements (#16). Specified that "obsolete" did not refer to the nature and purpose of the institute, but to whatever had lost its meaning or was no longer of genuine assistance (#17). Reaffirmed need for members to have effective roles and urged that exercise of authority be more efficacious by lessening recourse to higher superiors (#18). Renewal continually fostered to be eventually efficacious (#19).
Specifics for changes introduced by PC. Divine Office strongly recommended to share more intimately in Church's liturgical life (#20). Mental prayer to be a priority over other forms (#22). New forms of penance encouraged (#22). New means to promote spirit & practice of evangelical poverty for institutes and individual members (##23 and 24). A certain flexibility mandated in expressions of common life: free time and recreation available in addition to customary spiritual exercises and apostolic activities (#26). Formation tailored to specific character of each institute (#33) and should continue formally after initial profession (#35). Formation to include practical as well as theoretical aspects (#36) while carefully maintaining the proper character of each institute as such (#37). Specific circumstances noted warranting suppression or joining of existing institutes, namely, small number of members and lack of new candidates and advanced age (##40 & 41). Reaffirmed necessity for freedom of choice, individual consultation and overriding charity in suppression or consolidation (#41).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Evangelica Testificatio
EVANGELICA TESTIFICATIO, 1971, apostolic exhortation, Paul VI [Note: ET, along with ES, span the spectrum of post-Vatican documents from those clearly legislative to those which are normative in a direct appeal to conscience & warranted a conscientious response from readers.]. It states "...certain arbitrary transformations...exaggerated distrust of the past...a mentality excessively preoccupied with hastily conforming to the profound changes which disturb our times" (#2) with recourse to VAT II casting "doubt on…very principle of religious life" (#2). Cautioned against "too hardy" an experimentation intermingled with a worldly spirit (##4, 5, 6) & recalled the Church's role in authenticating the state of life by profession of the evangelical counsels (#7). Used "charisms" for the first time in an officially promulgated document regarding institutes of consecrated life (#11). Insisted on fidelity to charism of institute and adaptation of charism to "changing circumstances of time and place" while retaining their "touchstone of authenticity" (#12).
ET reaffirmed chastity as meaningful, singular witness in modern world "ever threatened by ravaging eroticism" (#13) and urged a poverty of conscious restraint (#19) using only goods "necessary for daily sustenance" (#17). It encouraged poverty plus non-violent concern for the poor to assure "compromise with any form of social injustice" is excluded from consecrated life (#18); notes necessity & dignity of work (#20), noted the importance of communal sharing (#21), and the significance of "a religious type of dress" (#22) as integral to authentic contemporary expression of the poverty of Christ. Cited obedience as complementary to authority in "service of the common good," requiring trustful dialogue and general agreement plus acceptance of decisions of superiors (#25); encouraged continued fidelity to demands of common life (#39); urged a lifestyle of "joyful, well-balanced austerity" (#30), and questioned a "flexibility and creative spontaneity" that considered even "minimal regularity" as rigid (#32). It affirmed appropriate recollection (#35), a rhythm of religious observance (#36), "fruitful rediscovery of the means essential for leading a life completely permeated with love of God and neighbor" (#37).
In ET Paul VI unequivocally asserted "faithfulness to prayer or its abandonment are the test of the vitality or decadence of religious life" (#42) and affirmed the need for intimacy with God in order to be humbly attentive to God's people (##43,44). Primacy of the interior life (#45), the importance of silence (#46), the centrality of liturgical worship and celebration of Eucharist (##47,48) were each noted as important for spiritual fruitfulness. He insisted that prayer and spirituality, individual and communal, were to be expressed according to the charism of each institute (#50).
In a reflective and summary fashion, Paul VI called all members of consecrated life to renewed awareness of the conciliar mandate for renewal and also (quite pointedly) indicated that the moment had come " for rectification, if need be, of conscience, and also a transformation of one’s whole life, in order to attain greater fidelity” (#53). Its closing imperatives were (are) quite demanding: "Be truly poor, meek, eager for holiness, merciful and pure of heart. Be among those who will bring to the world the peace of God" (#54). Finally, in recalling the inspiration and appeal that Christian life has for youth and of affirming the importance of spiritual joy, Paul cited PC #24 to remind religious that "The example of your life constitutes the finest recommendation of the institute and the most effective invitation to embrace the religious life." The document was highly criticized by some religious (primarily women’s communities).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
ET reaffirmed chastity as meaningful, singular witness in modern world "ever threatened by ravaging eroticism" (#13) and urged a poverty of conscious restraint (#19) using only goods "necessary for daily sustenance" (#17). It encouraged poverty plus non-violent concern for the poor to assure "compromise with any form of social injustice" is excluded from consecrated life (#18); notes necessity & dignity of work (#20), noted the importance of communal sharing (#21), and the significance of "a religious type of dress" (#22) as integral to authentic contemporary expression of the poverty of Christ. Cited obedience as complementary to authority in "service of the common good," requiring trustful dialogue and general agreement plus acceptance of decisions of superiors (#25); encouraged continued fidelity to demands of common life (#39); urged a lifestyle of "joyful, well-balanced austerity" (#30), and questioned a "flexibility and creative spontaneity" that considered even "minimal regularity" as rigid (#32). It affirmed appropriate recollection (#35), a rhythm of religious observance (#36), "fruitful rediscovery of the means essential for leading a life completely permeated with love of God and neighbor" (#37).
In ET Paul VI unequivocally asserted "faithfulness to prayer or its abandonment are the test of the vitality or decadence of religious life" (#42) and affirmed the need for intimacy with God in order to be humbly attentive to God's people (##43,44). Primacy of the interior life (#45), the importance of silence (#46), the centrality of liturgical worship and celebration of Eucharist (##47,48) were each noted as important for spiritual fruitfulness. He insisted that prayer and spirituality, individual and communal, were to be expressed according to the charism of each institute (#50).
In a reflective and summary fashion, Paul VI called all members of consecrated life to renewed awareness of the conciliar mandate for renewal and also (quite pointedly) indicated that the moment had come " for rectification, if need be, of conscience, and also a transformation of one’s whole life, in order to attain greater fidelity” (#53). Its closing imperatives were (are) quite demanding: "Be truly poor, meek, eager for holiness, merciful and pure of heart. Be among those who will bring to the world the peace of God" (#54). Finally, in recalling the inspiration and appeal that Christian life has for youth and of affirming the importance of spiritual joy, Paul cited PC #24 to remind religious that "The example of your life constitutes the finest recommendation of the institute and the most effective invitation to embrace the religious life." The document was highly criticized by some religious (primarily women’s communities).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Contemplative Dimension of Religious Life
CONTEMPLATIVE DIMENSION OF RELIGIOUS LIFE parallels the 1981 document Religious and Human Promotion. It presents practical guidelines based on sound doctrinal analysis and is conveniently divided into a preliminary description (##1-3), with guidelines for institutes of active life (##4-23) plus guidelines for contemplative institutes (##24-29), and has a short conclusion (#30).
In the descriptive section, the contemplative dimension of religious life is expressed as a grace enabling one to commune with the trinitarian mystery and savor the depths of God. It refers to contemplation as that "theological response of faith, hope and charity, by which the believer opens up to the revelation of the living God and to communion with him through Christ in the Holy Spirit" and as the "unifying act of all human movement towards God" (#1). Specific means to foster contemplation are: (1) listening and meditating on the Word of God; (2) participating in the sacraments; (3) practicing liturgical and personal prayer; (4) searching for God's will in people and events; (5) consciously participating in God's salvific mission; and (6) self-giving to others for the sake of the Kingdom (#1). These facilitate "an attitude of continuous and humble adoration of God's mysterious presence in people, events, and things" and foster piety and interior peace (#1) and also witness "to the primacy of the personal relationship with God" (#2).
The guidelines for institutes of active life are divided into five sub-headings: (a) integration of activity and contemplation; (b) attention to life in the Holy Spirit; (c) community; (d) formation; and (e) local churches. Regarding integration of action and contemplation, CDRL notes that apostolic and charitable activity pertain to the nature of apostolic religious life. It adds that apostolic action is participation in the mission of Christ and the Church and must spring from love nourished in one's heart "as the most intimate sanctuary...where grace unifies the interior life and activity" (#4). "Integration between interiority and activity" is crucial, with the "first duty" for active religious as "that of being with Christ." CDRL cautions that a "constant danger for apostolic workers is to become so much involved in their work for the Lord, as to forget the Lord of all work" (#4).
Prayer is presented as "the indispensable breath of every contemplative dimension" of religious life. Open to creation and history, contemplative prayer "becomes acknowledgement, adoration and constant praise of God in the world and its history," but such prayer requires "a high level of vitality and intensity" with "well-ordered and sufficiently prolonged" periods of daily, weekly, monthly and yearly prayer experiences (#5). Apostolic activity nourishes union with God, which must be deepened by daily prayer if activities are to be expressions of evangelical religious life which never consists merely in exterior activity (#6). The document cautions superiors to be solicitous for fostering the contemplative dimension of religious life in accord with the special nature of each institute (#7).
Daily encounter with the Word of God is more effective insofar as it is "heard not only in its objective richness, but also in the historical circumstances" of our time and in light of Church teaching (#8). To support the contemplative dimension of life in God, religious need to participate in the Eucharist and be "visibly assembled in their chapel" in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament as part of their daily life (#9). CDRL urges religious to cultivate appreciation for the sacrament of reconciliation (#11) and to be aware of spiritual direction in fostering fidelity to their vocation and mission (#10). Constant inspiration and nourishment should be available from praying the Liturgy of the Hours with attention and devotion (#12). CDRL presents Mary as a model for faith, charity, and union with Christ (#13). Generous personal and communal asceticism is noted as indispensable for fostering a genuine contemplative attitude (#14). While recommending a proper balance between "renunciation and joy, between sacrifice and opening of heart, between discipline and spiritual liberty," CDRL emphasizes silence as a means of fostering "growth in the contemplative dimension [which] certainly cannot be reconciled...with indiscriminate and sometimes imprudent use of the mass-media; with an exaggerated and extroverted activism; [and] with an atmosphere of dissipation which contradicts the expectations of every religious life" (#14). Silence as a personal discipline must embrace one's whole being so the sacramental significance of daily realities are not reduced to horizontal or temporal levels (#15).
Community is a theological reality and a place for contemplation requiring a daily search for encounter with God among others (#15). Those in authority should not be absorbed "merely in administrative duties" (#16). Religious formation should primarily immerse one in the experience of God with emphasis on integration of the interior life and the active life. Religious should be formed to live their vocation in a concrete, effective way (#17). Formation must introduce members to the special nature of the institute (#18) and it must be solidly founded on its apostolic commitments in keeping with needs of the Church, rather than oriented to achieving personal goals for self-fulfillment (#19). Formation personnel must have practical insight, human experience, prayerful wisdom, liturgical awareness, cultural competence, and sufficient time and energy to attend to candidates (#20).
CDRL concludes noting that contemplation is the "real secret of renewal" in following Christ (#30).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
In the descriptive section, the contemplative dimension of religious life is expressed as a grace enabling one to commune with the trinitarian mystery and savor the depths of God. It refers to contemplation as that "theological response of faith, hope and charity, by which the believer opens up to the revelation of the living God and to communion with him through Christ in the Holy Spirit" and as the "unifying act of all human movement towards God" (#1). Specific means to foster contemplation are: (1) listening and meditating on the Word of God; (2) participating in the sacraments; (3) practicing liturgical and personal prayer; (4) searching for God's will in people and events; (5) consciously participating in God's salvific mission; and (6) self-giving to others for the sake of the Kingdom (#1). These facilitate "an attitude of continuous and humble adoration of God's mysterious presence in people, events, and things" and foster piety and interior peace (#1) and also witness "to the primacy of the personal relationship with God" (#2).
The guidelines for institutes of active life are divided into five sub-headings: (a) integration of activity and contemplation; (b) attention to life in the Holy Spirit; (c) community; (d) formation; and (e) local churches. Regarding integration of action and contemplation, CDRL notes that apostolic and charitable activity pertain to the nature of apostolic religious life. It adds that apostolic action is participation in the mission of Christ and the Church and must spring from love nourished in one's heart "as the most intimate sanctuary...where grace unifies the interior life and activity" (#4). "Integration between interiority and activity" is crucial, with the "first duty" for active religious as "that of being with Christ." CDRL cautions that a "constant danger for apostolic workers is to become so much involved in their work for the Lord, as to forget the Lord of all work" (#4).
Prayer is presented as "the indispensable breath of every contemplative dimension" of religious life. Open to creation and history, contemplative prayer "becomes acknowledgement, adoration and constant praise of God in the world and its history," but such prayer requires "a high level of vitality and intensity" with "well-ordered and sufficiently prolonged" periods of daily, weekly, monthly and yearly prayer experiences (#5). Apostolic activity nourishes union with God, which must be deepened by daily prayer if activities are to be expressions of evangelical religious life which never consists merely in exterior activity (#6). The document cautions superiors to be solicitous for fostering the contemplative dimension of religious life in accord with the special nature of each institute (#7).
Daily encounter with the Word of God is more effective insofar as it is "heard not only in its objective richness, but also in the historical circumstances" of our time and in light of Church teaching (#8). To support the contemplative dimension of life in God, religious need to participate in the Eucharist and be "visibly assembled in their chapel" in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament as part of their daily life (#9). CDRL urges religious to cultivate appreciation for the sacrament of reconciliation (#11) and to be aware of spiritual direction in fostering fidelity to their vocation and mission (#10). Constant inspiration and nourishment should be available from praying the Liturgy of the Hours with attention and devotion (#12). CDRL presents Mary as a model for faith, charity, and union with Christ (#13). Generous personal and communal asceticism is noted as indispensable for fostering a genuine contemplative attitude (#14). While recommending a proper balance between "renunciation and joy, between sacrifice and opening of heart, between discipline and spiritual liberty," CDRL emphasizes silence as a means of fostering "growth in the contemplative dimension [which] certainly cannot be reconciled...with indiscriminate and sometimes imprudent use of the mass-media; with an exaggerated and extroverted activism; [and] with an atmosphere of dissipation which contradicts the expectations of every religious life" (#14). Silence as a personal discipline must embrace one's whole being so the sacramental significance of daily realities are not reduced to horizontal or temporal levels (#15).
Community is a theological reality and a place for contemplation requiring a daily search for encounter with God among others (#15). Those in authority should not be absorbed "merely in administrative duties" (#16). Religious formation should primarily immerse one in the experience of God with emphasis on integration of the interior life and the active life. Religious should be formed to live their vocation in a concrete, effective way (#17). Formation must introduce members to the special nature of the institute (#18) and it must be solidly founded on its apostolic commitments in keeping with needs of the Church, rather than oriented to achieving personal goals for self-fulfillment (#19). Formation personnel must have practical insight, human experience, prayerful wisdom, liturgical awareness, cultural competence, and sufficient time and energy to attend to candidates (#20).
CDRL concludes noting that contemplation is the "real secret of renewal" in following Christ (#30).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Religious and Human Promotion
RELIGIOUS and HUMAN PROMOTION , issued by SCRIS in January 1981, had been approved in spring 1980 (and was begun in early 1978). It is a brief, concise text coordinating principal aspects of previous Vatican and Council documents and relating them to renewal of the religious life at that time.
RHP emphasizes the Church’s evangelical mission to announce the Gospel and transform humanity from within. It cites the "special witness" of religious "to remind their contemporaries that the building of the earthly city cannot but be based on the Lord and directed towards him" and affirms "rapport" between evangelization and religious life. The Introduction lists four issues (1-12) plus four criteria for discernment of the role of religious in human promotion (13-31) and offers suggestions for formation, government and collaboration related to these issues and criteria (32-35). The four issues are: (1) option for the poor and justice; (2) social activities and work of religious; (3) involvement in the "world of work"; and (4) direct involvement in politics. The four criteria for discernment, or "four great loyalties" (13), are: (1) fidelity to humanity and our times; (2) fidelity to Christ and the Gospel; (3) fidelity to the Church and its mission in the world; and (4) fidelity to religious life and the charism of one's institute. RHP considers the guidelines a "contribution to the communication, formation and co-ordination" for those responsible for religious. RHP affirms the witness of religious in supporting the lowly and defending human rights but notes various interpretations of and reactions to such activity (3). In seeking principles, RHP repeats the prophetic and missionary character of religious life (4a) as serving the Gospel through patience and perseverance while seeking the truth in charity (4b). It urges avoidance of justice stances unless genuinely neutral (4c) and encourages wholehearted response to the plight of refugees, unborn, oppressed, and marginalized (4d). Religious need constant re-evaluation of use of property, patterns of relationships, commitment to prayer, silence, penance and sacrifice (4e).
Renewal of religious life in keeping with the purpose and creativity of founders/foundresses is important for the Church and human promotion (5), so RHP encourages up-dating of traditional apostolates (6a), responsiveness to current needs (6b), openness to new ministries in keeping with the charism (6c), increased participation of laity in works of an institute (6d), and creative forms of sharing to enhance the social responsibility of all citizens (6e). Reaffirming the Church's awareness of modern social and economic conditions, it sees poverty as obliging religious to the common law of work (7) as reaffirmed by (a) dynamic fidelity to the original purpose of each institute; (b) witness to the Gospel regarding the dignity of work; (c) commitment to the religious dimension of their lives as expressing the Kingdom; and (d) sharing the daily challenge of community as expressing Christ's love (8). It sees religious work as one of pastoral concern (9). It acknowledges an impetus for social involvement in defense of justice (10a), eschews social participation promoting class struggle (10b) and highlights Christian communion as the particular expertise for religious, in contrast to polarization (10c). It notes laity primarily promote "solidarity and justice within secular structures" (10d) but accepts political involvement for religious when understood as stimulating commitment to cultural transformation (12a). Intense pastoral concern is expressed for putting people in touch with the Gospel as the source of authentic human and social progress (14). Since the call of religious is radical, religious should be challenged to conversion promoting stable reform in a just and peaceful society (15). Institutes should witness their mission within a proper understanding of contemporary needs in the Church (16).
Religious lifestyles should be similar to those presented in the Beatitudes (17) and should inspire a "revision of life and values" for fruitful commitment to the liberation proclaimed and accomplished only in Jesus (18). RHP affirms the primary liberation for religious as encounter with Christ testifying to preeminence of the kingdom of God and transforming the world by the Beatitudes (19). United by profession to the Church, RHP sees religious as participating in the sacramental nature of the people of God with fidelity to their own institute (20 and 21). Religious limit participation in secular structures by their life "carried out communally in all its dimensions" as a radical witness to the Gospel (23).
Relying on LG 44 and PC 15, RHP views religious as "[E]xperts in communion" and key witnesses in God's "plan for unity." It affirms the value of "daily experience of communion of life, prayer and apostolate--[as] the essential and distinctive elements of their form of consecrated life" (24). RHP points out that religious participate in apostolic activity "in obedience to the common purpose and to the superiors" of their institutes (25). Apostolic choices should be based on the Church's social teaching and made in consultation with bishops (26). RHP makes clear that response to needs must be faithful to the "characteristics of religious life and the special nature" the institute (§28). It notes the question of Paul VI : "How can the message of the Gospel penetrate the world?" as enlightening all choices of renewal in the concrete. It urges religious to be faithful to the ardor of their founder or foundress and to be guided by the Spirit's inspiration (30). Religious show "an immense fund of generosity" in responding to the urgent needs of the Church (31).
Commenting on formation, government and collaboration, RHP cites conciliar criteria for renewal of religious life as excluding mere adaptation of external forms and requiring "a deep education in attitude and in lifestyle" leading to "new forms of presence...as consecrated persons who seek the full conversion of people and society in the ways of the Gospel through witness and services" (2). RHP reaffirms the profound nature of religious life, the importance of fidelity to charism, the need for creative involvement in apostolates, attentiveness to the prophetic sign value of the evangelical counsels; the significance of life in common, the need for integrated formation in contemporary knowledge and in the Church's thinking; awareness of the role of religious in "awakening consciences" (original emphasis) in the formation of other Christians, and generosity towards the missionary needs of the Church (33). The document is concise in wording and compact in content and warrants reflective reading especially by members of communities with a primarily apostolic orientation. It may be notable among often selectively quoted, seldom entirely read or studied documents since Vatican Council II.
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
RHP emphasizes the Church’s evangelical mission to announce the Gospel and transform humanity from within. It cites the "special witness" of religious "to remind their contemporaries that the building of the earthly city cannot but be based on the Lord and directed towards him" and affirms "rapport" between evangelization and religious life. The Introduction lists four issues (1-12) plus four criteria for discernment of the role of religious in human promotion (13-31) and offers suggestions for formation, government and collaboration related to these issues and criteria (32-35). The four issues are: (1) option for the poor and justice; (2) social activities and work of religious; (3) involvement in the "world of work"; and (4) direct involvement in politics. The four criteria for discernment, or "four great loyalties" (13), are: (1) fidelity to humanity and our times; (2) fidelity to Christ and the Gospel; (3) fidelity to the Church and its mission in the world; and (4) fidelity to religious life and the charism of one's institute. RHP considers the guidelines a "contribution to the communication, formation and co-ordination" for those responsible for religious. RHP affirms the witness of religious in supporting the lowly and defending human rights but notes various interpretations of and reactions to such activity (3). In seeking principles, RHP repeats the prophetic and missionary character of religious life (4a) as serving the Gospel through patience and perseverance while seeking the truth in charity (4b). It urges avoidance of justice stances unless genuinely neutral (4c) and encourages wholehearted response to the plight of refugees, unborn, oppressed, and marginalized (4d). Religious need constant re-evaluation of use of property, patterns of relationships, commitment to prayer, silence, penance and sacrifice (4e).
Renewal of religious life in keeping with the purpose and creativity of founders/foundresses is important for the Church and human promotion (5), so RHP encourages up-dating of traditional apostolates (6a), responsiveness to current needs (6b), openness to new ministries in keeping with the charism (6c), increased participation of laity in works of an institute (6d), and creative forms of sharing to enhance the social responsibility of all citizens (6e). Reaffirming the Church's awareness of modern social and economic conditions, it sees poverty as obliging religious to the common law of work (7) as reaffirmed by (a) dynamic fidelity to the original purpose of each institute; (b) witness to the Gospel regarding the dignity of work; (c) commitment to the religious dimension of their lives as expressing the Kingdom; and (d) sharing the daily challenge of community as expressing Christ's love (8). It sees religious work as one of pastoral concern (9). It acknowledges an impetus for social involvement in defense of justice (10a), eschews social participation promoting class struggle (10b) and highlights Christian communion as the particular expertise for religious, in contrast to polarization (10c). It notes laity primarily promote "solidarity and justice within secular structures" (10d) but accepts political involvement for religious when understood as stimulating commitment to cultural transformation (12a). Intense pastoral concern is expressed for putting people in touch with the Gospel as the source of authentic human and social progress (14). Since the call of religious is radical, religious should be challenged to conversion promoting stable reform in a just and peaceful society (15). Institutes should witness their mission within a proper understanding of contemporary needs in the Church (16).
Religious lifestyles should be similar to those presented in the Beatitudes (17) and should inspire a "revision of life and values" for fruitful commitment to the liberation proclaimed and accomplished only in Jesus (18). RHP affirms the primary liberation for religious as encounter with Christ testifying to preeminence of the kingdom of God and transforming the world by the Beatitudes (19). United by profession to the Church, RHP sees religious as participating in the sacramental nature of the people of God with fidelity to their own institute (20 and 21). Religious limit participation in secular structures by their life "carried out communally in all its dimensions" as a radical witness to the Gospel (23).
Relying on LG 44 and PC 15, RHP views religious as "[E]xperts in communion" and key witnesses in God's "plan for unity." It affirms the value of "daily experience of communion of life, prayer and apostolate--[as] the essential and distinctive elements of their form of consecrated life" (24). RHP points out that religious participate in apostolic activity "in obedience to the common purpose and to the superiors" of their institutes (25). Apostolic choices should be based on the Church's social teaching and made in consultation with bishops (26). RHP makes clear that response to needs must be faithful to the "characteristics of religious life and the special nature" the institute (§28). It notes the question of Paul VI : "How can the message of the Gospel penetrate the world?" as enlightening all choices of renewal in the concrete. It urges religious to be faithful to the ardor of their founder or foundress and to be guided by the Spirit's inspiration (30). Religious show "an immense fund of generosity" in responding to the urgent needs of the Church (31).
Commenting on formation, government and collaboration, RHP cites conciliar criteria for renewal of religious life as excluding mere adaptation of external forms and requiring "a deep education in attitude and in lifestyle" leading to "new forms of presence...as consecrated persons who seek the full conversion of people and society in the ways of the Gospel through witness and services" (2). RHP reaffirms the profound nature of religious life, the importance of fidelity to charism, the need for creative involvement in apostolates, attentiveness to the prophetic sign value of the evangelical counsels; the significance of life in common, the need for integrated formation in contemporary knowledge and in the Church's thinking; awareness of the role of religious in "awakening consciences" (original emphasis) in the formation of other Christians, and generosity towards the missionary needs of the Church (33). The document is concise in wording and compact in content and warrants reflective reading especially by members of communities with a primarily apostolic orientation. It may be notable among often selectively quoted, seldom entirely read or studied documents since Vatican Council II.
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Redemptionis Donum
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION TO RELIGIOUS: REDEMPTIONIS DONUM
RD is brief, with (1) a greeting, (2) comments on the biblical context of vocation, (3) discussion of religious consecration related to baptism, (4) explication of evangelical counsels in general and the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience in particular, with specific reference to the mystery of redemption, (5) witness of religious life in the Church, (6) conclusion. It discusses religious life as a majestic and profound reality as connected with values and demands of participation in the paschal mystery. It seems deliberately not to address pragmatic problems and ongoing issues related to post-conciliar renewal. Nor does it present concretely verifiable course of practical action for assuring functional fidelity to one's vocation. It does call religious to a conversion and reconciliation necessary for deep meditation on their vocation in light of the mystery of redemption. It places religious life at the heart of the Church through consecration manifesting a striving towards fullness of Christian life (#1).
The exhortation is grounded in LG and PC and relies on Paul VI's apostolic exhortation, ET. It considers the Code of Canon Law a valuable guide indicating means of faithfully and generously living one's vocation (#2). Using the parable of the rich young man, it addresses the "interior structure of a vocation" as direct encounter with and consequent reflection of "the eternal love of the Father" and the "redeeming love" of Jesus. This encounter--specifically personal, spousal and free--results in total self-donation to the work of redemption in the likeness of Christ (#3). Relying on biblical sources, RD notes that the call to perfection, understood in the image and likeness of God, has always belonged to "the very essence of the Christian vocation" (#4). Applying the parable of the rich young man in Matthew 19:21 to religious life, poverty replaces a lifestyle based on possessions with of a lifestyle centered on the value of the human person. The primacy of being over having is highlighted as center of the anthropological bases for a Gospel vocation as witness to the mystery of redemption in an age of materialism and consumerism (#4). Imperatives to the rich young man to "go," "sell," "give" and "follow" are pathways to discover one's true self and the treasure of one's eschatological fulfillment (#5). The transcendent nature of a religious vocation is realized through the evangelical counsels (#5), whereas the structure of a religious vocation has its referent in the person of Jesus (#6). For religious, their new and fuller consecration of profession, rooted in Baptism, entails giving of the entire human person to God in a "particular style of life, witness and apostolate, in fidelity to the mission of [one's] Institute and to its identity and spiritual heritage" (#7). This consecration is a "special covenant of spousal love" through which one is chosen and freely chooses God as sole treasure of one's heart (#8).
Setting profession of the vows in the economy of redemption, RD notes the Gospel invites response beyond minimal commands and is characteristic of a Christocentric commitment which is redemptive (#9). Religious profession inclines a person to embrace the will of God and to overcome the world in the likeness of Christ (#9). Chastity, poverty and obedience transform one's interior life and exterior demeanor in a manner that relates each person to “renewal of creation" in a redemptive sense, while the internal purpose of the counsels draws one towards increased sensitivity to a paschal dimension within (#10). Interpersonal and social dimensions of redemption in the likeness of Christ subject all religious to the "law of renunciation" that "belongs in a peculiar way to the essence of the[ir] vocation" (#10).
Chastity gives eschatological witness and makes transcendent realities present in the midst of temporal concerns (#11). Poverty in the likeness of Christ places religious at the center of the Gospel message expressed in the beatitudes, and enriches not with material goods by "bestowing gifts on others in the manner of God" (#12). Obedience is likened to that of Christ in the humble following of God's will unto death. and has redemptive potential for furthering holiness (#13). In particular, it exemplifies an attitude of service and interior freedom is indicative of mature self-surrender (#13).
RD makes clear that the witness of religious life in the Church consists primarily in leading the world towards a fulfillment found only in God (#14). The value of religious consists always in who they are, not what they do (#15). The communal nature of religious life manifests caring for and bearing the burdens of one another indicative of true disciples. Sensitivity and responsiveness to needs and sufferings of others are concrete witness to a deep bond linking religious to Christ (#15). RD is a dense and intense document. Anthropologically sound and biblically well-grounded, it echoes the theology of religious life presented in PC and recalls the essentials of consecration to God and service to God's people. Like CDRL, it was overshadowed in 1984 by the Code and by "Essential Elements."
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
RD is brief, with (1) a greeting, (2) comments on the biblical context of vocation, (3) discussion of religious consecration related to baptism, (4) explication of evangelical counsels in general and the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience in particular, with specific reference to the mystery of redemption, (5) witness of religious life in the Church, (6) conclusion. It discusses religious life as a majestic and profound reality as connected with values and demands of participation in the paschal mystery. It seems deliberately not to address pragmatic problems and ongoing issues related to post-conciliar renewal. Nor does it present concretely verifiable course of practical action for assuring functional fidelity to one's vocation. It does call religious to a conversion and reconciliation necessary for deep meditation on their vocation in light of the mystery of redemption. It places religious life at the heart of the Church through consecration manifesting a striving towards fullness of Christian life (#1).
The exhortation is grounded in LG and PC and relies on Paul VI's apostolic exhortation, ET. It considers the Code of Canon Law a valuable guide indicating means of faithfully and generously living one's vocation (#2). Using the parable of the rich young man, it addresses the "interior structure of a vocation" as direct encounter with and consequent reflection of "the eternal love of the Father" and the "redeeming love" of Jesus. This encounter--specifically personal, spousal and free--results in total self-donation to the work of redemption in the likeness of Christ (#3). Relying on biblical sources, RD notes that the call to perfection, understood in the image and likeness of God, has always belonged to "the very essence of the Christian vocation" (#4). Applying the parable of the rich young man in Matthew 19:21 to religious life, poverty replaces a lifestyle based on possessions with of a lifestyle centered on the value of the human person. The primacy of being over having is highlighted as center of the anthropological bases for a Gospel vocation as witness to the mystery of redemption in an age of materialism and consumerism (#4). Imperatives to the rich young man to "go," "sell," "give" and "follow" are pathways to discover one's true self and the treasure of one's eschatological fulfillment (#5). The transcendent nature of a religious vocation is realized through the evangelical counsels (#5), whereas the structure of a religious vocation has its referent in the person of Jesus (#6). For religious, their new and fuller consecration of profession, rooted in Baptism, entails giving of the entire human person to God in a "particular style of life, witness and apostolate, in fidelity to the mission of [one's] Institute and to its identity and spiritual heritage" (#7). This consecration is a "special covenant of spousal love" through which one is chosen and freely chooses God as sole treasure of one's heart (#8).
Setting profession of the vows in the economy of redemption, RD notes the Gospel invites response beyond minimal commands and is characteristic of a Christocentric commitment which is redemptive (#9). Religious profession inclines a person to embrace the will of God and to overcome the world in the likeness of Christ (#9). Chastity, poverty and obedience transform one's interior life and exterior demeanor in a manner that relates each person to “renewal of creation" in a redemptive sense, while the internal purpose of the counsels draws one towards increased sensitivity to a paschal dimension within (#10). Interpersonal and social dimensions of redemption in the likeness of Christ subject all religious to the "law of renunciation" that "belongs in a peculiar way to the essence of the[ir] vocation" (#10).
Chastity gives eschatological witness and makes transcendent realities present in the midst of temporal concerns (#11). Poverty in the likeness of Christ places religious at the center of the Gospel message expressed in the beatitudes, and enriches not with material goods by "bestowing gifts on others in the manner of God" (#12). Obedience is likened to that of Christ in the humble following of God's will unto death. and has redemptive potential for furthering holiness (#13). In particular, it exemplifies an attitude of service and interior freedom is indicative of mature self-surrender (#13).
RD makes clear that the witness of religious life in the Church consists primarily in leading the world towards a fulfillment found only in God (#14). The value of religious consists always in who they are, not what they do (#15). The communal nature of religious life manifests caring for and bearing the burdens of one another indicative of true disciples. Sensitivity and responsiveness to needs and sufferings of others are concrete witness to a deep bond linking religious to Christ (#15). RD is a dense and intense document. Anthropologically sound and biblically well-grounded, it echoes the theology of religious life presented in PC and recalls the essentials of consecration to God and service to God's people. Like CDRL, it was overshadowed in 1984 by the Code and by "Essential Elements."
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Directives on Religious Formation
DIRECTIVES on RELIGIOUS FORMATION: POTISSIMUM INSTITUTIONI
Issued February 1990, these can be traced to 1969 and to other documents including the 1983 Code. It has a short introduction (§§1-5), treats religious consecration (§§6-18), common aspects of formation (§§19-41), stages of formation (§§42-71), formation in contemplative institutes (§§72-84), practical matters in formation (§§86-100), religious clerics (§§101-109) and a brief conclusion (§110).
Formation is "harmonious fusion" of "spiritual, apostolic, doctrinal and practical elements" of religious life (§1) for discovering, assimilating and deepening a "religious identity" in order to be "inserted into the world as a significant, effective and faithful witness (§6). Profession consecrates the person to God and simultaneously incorporates one in a religious institute (§§10). Specific aspects are listed to be addressed in formation for chastity (§13), poverty (§14), and obedience (§15). Diversity of religious charisms is affirmed stating "[T]here is no uniform way" to observe evangelical counsels (§16), so each institute must remain faithful to its character and purpose in the Church, and each religious must avoid a dichotomy between "consecration to God and mission in the world" (§17). The primary apostolate of religious is the witness of one's life. It affirms the need for humility and for knowledge and practice of spiritual discernment (§19). Because religious are part of the life and holiness of the Church (§21), PI affirms the need for religious to develop a sense of communion manifest both "with" and "within" the pilgrim people of God (§23-24). This sense of Church "does not accept being perceived or analyzed from merely a sociological or political point of view" and imparts a "feeling for ecclesial communion" emphasizing the importance of common life in formation (§§24-25).
Genuinely practical, PI states "a community will be what its member make it." Community does not exist or endure merely because members are "happy together due to an affinity in thought, character, or options, but because the Lord has brought them together and unites them by a common consecration" (§26). Since community must be formative for new members, interpersonal relationships should foster simplicity, confidence, faith and charity in the context of a spiritual atmosphere, an austerity of life and apostolic enthusiasm (§27). Prudently chosen periods of apostolic activity should be provided during formation (§28), and candidates should be aware the responsibility for interiorizing the values of religious life (§29). Those in charge of formation should assist candidates to discern the authenticity of one's vocation and to further one's dialogue with God (§30). Formation should provide solid doctrinal and practical nourishment in a serene and understanding context (§31). Aware that a firm foundation in human and Christian dimensions of the person is necessary (§33), PI reminds superiors and formation personnel that only those who live their baptismal promises in a manner consistent with their age should be admitted to the novitiate (§34). PI favors a perennial and contemporary asceticism related to the virtues of faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude efficaciously applied to all aspects of one's life as an integral part of formation (§36).
Those prior to the novitiate should not be reduced to the level of general information transmitted in the catechumenate (§43), and it should be clear that candidates are not members of the institute (§44). The novitiate must comprises a total initiation to consecrated life and to the charism of the institute. In addition to already existing legal requirements, institutes with a two year novitiate can provide opportunities for professional activities in keeping with their apostolate during the 2nd year (§48), but the demands of formation take precedence over apostolic involvement (§50). Novitiate formation should not merely be inserted between years of basically continued professional activity.
Temporary profession should be a genuine opportunity for living the daily life of one's religious community fully in prolonged preparation for perpetual profession (§56). During this time formation should continue under the direction of a specific professed religious (§60). Suggestions for this time include continuing studies in biblical, dogmatic, spiritual and pastoral theology as well as suitable philosophical studies and ongoing spiritual direction (§§61-63). In an event, it should not be reduced merely to achieving practical or theoretical goals for personal fulfillment, but should help meet requirements for apostolic commitments of in community in harmony with needs of the Church (§65).
Continuing formation after perpetual profession ought to be directed towards the whole person in relation to the spiritual mission of religious life (§66). PI suggests that specific opportunities for ongoing formation might fit well after initial experiences in community life, at completion of a certain number of years of profession , at a time of recognized greater maturity, at a time of distinct crisis, when a member withdraws from a particular activity, or at retiring from active ministry entirely (§70).
In a unique section entitled "Actual Questions Concerning Religious Formation," PI addresses: (a) effects of modernity on youth in relation to religious life; (b) relationship of religious formation and culture; (c) religious life in connection with current ecclesial movements; (d) religious in relation to the ministry of bishops; and (e) inter-institutional cooperation at various levels of formation. Briefly:
(a) RE: modernity, it affirms concerns of youth for justice, peace, fellowship, solidarity, freedom, authenticity, etc., while noting possible difficulties arising from various ideologies (§87). It notes a need to fill the gap between the secular knowledge and psychological and spiritual growth. PI laments the pervasive lack of philosophical and theological foundation in young people (§88-89).
(b) RE: culture, the instruction affirms general affinity of culture with religious life but notes it is the Gospel which "frees the ultimate thrust of the values contained in a culture" (§90), while cultures itself can also expresses new aspects of the Gospel (§91).
(c) Recognizing the growth and important contribution of lay ecclesial movements, PI emphasizes centrality of charism for each religious family for identity and unity.
(d) Relying on Mutuae relations, PI affirms the rightful autonomy of religious institutes in the context of the bishops' role as authentic teachers and witnesses of the faith (§§95-96). It notes the need for mutual understanding as well as for cooperation and communication between centers of religious formation and bishops of the dioceses in which these are located (§97).
(e) Finally, PI encourages collaborative efforts in formation but insists that responsibility for formation belongs with each institute (§§98-99). It reminds religious that "the novitiate community properly so-called must be a homogeneous community proper to each institute" (§100).
In sum, religious formation is seen as often both difficult to effect and difficult to experience. But there is no, real substitute for sound formation; and the quality of one's entire religious life is--in some sense--both dependent on the caliber of initial formation as well as an ongoing manifestation of it.
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Issued February 1990, these can be traced to 1969 and to other documents including the 1983 Code. It has a short introduction (§§1-5), treats religious consecration (§§6-18), common aspects of formation (§§19-41), stages of formation (§§42-71), formation in contemplative institutes (§§72-84), practical matters in formation (§§86-100), religious clerics (§§101-109) and a brief conclusion (§110).
Formation is "harmonious fusion" of "spiritual, apostolic, doctrinal and practical elements" of religious life (§1) for discovering, assimilating and deepening a "religious identity" in order to be "inserted into the world as a significant, effective and faithful witness (§6). Profession consecrates the person to God and simultaneously incorporates one in a religious institute (§§10). Specific aspects are listed to be addressed in formation for chastity (§13), poverty (§14), and obedience (§15). Diversity of religious charisms is affirmed stating "[T]here is no uniform way" to observe evangelical counsels (§16), so each institute must remain faithful to its character and purpose in the Church, and each religious must avoid a dichotomy between "consecration to God and mission in the world" (§17). The primary apostolate of religious is the witness of one's life. It affirms the need for humility and for knowledge and practice of spiritual discernment (§19). Because religious are part of the life and holiness of the Church (§21), PI affirms the need for religious to develop a sense of communion manifest both "with" and "within" the pilgrim people of God (§23-24). This sense of Church "does not accept being perceived or analyzed from merely a sociological or political point of view" and imparts a "feeling for ecclesial communion" emphasizing the importance of common life in formation (§§24-25).
Genuinely practical, PI states "a community will be what its member make it." Community does not exist or endure merely because members are "happy together due to an affinity in thought, character, or options, but because the Lord has brought them together and unites them by a common consecration" (§26). Since community must be formative for new members, interpersonal relationships should foster simplicity, confidence, faith and charity in the context of a spiritual atmosphere, an austerity of life and apostolic enthusiasm (§27). Prudently chosen periods of apostolic activity should be provided during formation (§28), and candidates should be aware the responsibility for interiorizing the values of religious life (§29). Those in charge of formation should assist candidates to discern the authenticity of one's vocation and to further one's dialogue with God (§30). Formation should provide solid doctrinal and practical nourishment in a serene and understanding context (§31). Aware that a firm foundation in human and Christian dimensions of the person is necessary (§33), PI reminds superiors and formation personnel that only those who live their baptismal promises in a manner consistent with their age should be admitted to the novitiate (§34). PI favors a perennial and contemporary asceticism related to the virtues of faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude efficaciously applied to all aspects of one's life as an integral part of formation (§36).
Those prior to the novitiate should not be reduced to the level of general information transmitted in the catechumenate (§43), and it should be clear that candidates are not members of the institute (§44). The novitiate must comprises a total initiation to consecrated life and to the charism of the institute. In addition to already existing legal requirements, institutes with a two year novitiate can provide opportunities for professional activities in keeping with their apostolate during the 2nd year (§48), but the demands of formation take precedence over apostolic involvement (§50). Novitiate formation should not merely be inserted between years of basically continued professional activity.
Temporary profession should be a genuine opportunity for living the daily life of one's religious community fully in prolonged preparation for perpetual profession (§56). During this time formation should continue under the direction of a specific professed religious (§60). Suggestions for this time include continuing studies in biblical, dogmatic, spiritual and pastoral theology as well as suitable philosophical studies and ongoing spiritual direction (§§61-63). In an event, it should not be reduced merely to achieving practical or theoretical goals for personal fulfillment, but should help meet requirements for apostolic commitments of in community in harmony with needs of the Church (§65).
Continuing formation after perpetual profession ought to be directed towards the whole person in relation to the spiritual mission of religious life (§66). PI suggests that specific opportunities for ongoing formation might fit well after initial experiences in community life, at completion of a certain number of years of profession , at a time of recognized greater maturity, at a time of distinct crisis, when a member withdraws from a particular activity, or at retiring from active ministry entirely (§70).
In a unique section entitled "Actual Questions Concerning Religious Formation," PI addresses: (a) effects of modernity on youth in relation to religious life; (b) relationship of religious formation and culture; (c) religious life in connection with current ecclesial movements; (d) religious in relation to the ministry of bishops; and (e) inter-institutional cooperation at various levels of formation. Briefly:
(a) RE: modernity, it affirms concerns of youth for justice, peace, fellowship, solidarity, freedom, authenticity, etc., while noting possible difficulties arising from various ideologies (§87). It notes a need to fill the gap between the secular knowledge and psychological and spiritual growth. PI laments the pervasive lack of philosophical and theological foundation in young people (§88-89).
(b) RE: culture, the instruction affirms general affinity of culture with religious life but notes it is the Gospel which "frees the ultimate thrust of the values contained in a culture" (§90), while cultures itself can also expresses new aspects of the Gospel (§91).
(c) Recognizing the growth and important contribution of lay ecclesial movements, PI emphasizes centrality of charism for each religious family for identity and unity.
(d) Relying on Mutuae relations, PI affirms the rightful autonomy of religious institutes in the context of the bishops' role as authentic teachers and witnesses of the faith (§§95-96). It notes the need for mutual understanding as well as for cooperation and communication between centers of religious formation and bishops of the dioceses in which these are located (§97).
(e) Finally, PI encourages collaborative efforts in formation but insists that responsibility for formation belongs with each institute (§§98-99). It reminds religious that "the novitiate community properly so-called must be a homogeneous community proper to each institute" (§100).
In sum, religious formation is seen as often both difficult to effect and difficult to experience. But there is no, real substitute for sound formation; and the quality of one's entire religious life is--in some sense--both dependent on the caliber of initial formation as well as an ongoing manifestation of it.
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Fraternal Life in Community
COMMUNITY LIFE: CONGREGAVIT NOS IN UNUM CHRISTI AMOR, 2 February 1994
"Fraternal Life in Community" is long but compact. The introduction (§§ 1-7) and first section (§§ 8-10) describe community as a place for becoming brothers and sisters (§§ 11-57) and as a place and subject of mission (§§ 58-70). Its tone is serious and sensitive; content is contemporary and important.
The introduction (§§1-7) is a realistic, non-defensive presentation of theological, canonical and social realities re: changes in community noting "positive" & "questionable" changes wherein common life has "suffered a certain loss of tone" when return to Gospel sources and to the original charism has been partial or weak (§1). Stark and honest, it notes religious communities can be a Gospel presence in society or can conform to values of the world (§1). It sees ecclesiology as most significant, citing conciliar affirmation in LG that religious life belongs to the Church’s life and holiness (§2). Community is participation in and witness to the mystery of the Church (§2a). Religious life is gift to it (§2b).
FLC points out "two aspects" of community: (1) the spiritual bond of communion of hearts united in Christ and animated by charity; (2) visible common life in lawfully constituted religious houses with fidelity to the same norms and collaborating in the same actions and services (§3). It recognizes difficulties from various causes such as: influence of Third World developments; emphasis on personal freedom and human rights; advancement of women; the contemporary communications explosion; and combined factors of secularism and consumerism and hedonism in modern society (§4). It addresses changes specific to religious life, such as: (a) emergence of smaller, more homogeneous communities; (b) practical responses to new needs beyond traditional apostolates; (c) the secularized context of professionalism, often considering common life as "an obstacle to the apostolate or merely a functional instrument"; (d) renewed awareness of interpersonal relationships; and (e) the new, more participative governance structures in religious institutes. FLC invites any who are distanced from the ideal of common life to consider its necessity for religious institutes and societies of apostolic life (§6).
Religious community is a vocation to communion with God and one another, which includes equality, forgiveness in love and unity but which is not without tension and sacrifice (§9). Community cannot be treated as having a single expression, but daily common life, prayer and apostolate are "essential and distinctive" to religious life (§10), and religious are "called to live together" as a sign of communion (§11). It acknowledges living in common can seem, at times, beyond human strength and a waste of energy in an "activist and individualistic culture" (§12). Prayer in common is central to the quality of community (§13) with emphasis on Liturgy of the Hours and the Eucharist (§14) Common life requires fidelity and perseverance (§16) despite commitments and overwork and fatigue (§17). It requires ascetical self-denial (§22), patience learning (§23) and a certain objectivity (§24).
Communities cannot avoid all conflict (§26) and must cultivate "respect, kindness, sincerity, self-control, tactfulness, a sense of humor and a spirit of self control" with a joyful simplicity, clarity, trust, capacity for dialogue, and sincere acceptance of mutual, beneficial discipline (§27). It warns against pitfalls of overwork, excessive zeal for isolated causes, and constant self-analysis as destructive of joyful life in community (§28). It notes the importance of communication skills for the purpose of strengthening life together (§§29-33) and a correlative caution re: indiscriminate use of mass media as community entertainment (§35). Meaningful maturity and self-actualization are integral to spiritual and cultural maturity (§36), while genuine, healthy affectivity is affirmed as fundamental for life together (§37). Not minimizing potential difficulties (§38) or effects of individualism (§39), true communion results from convergence of diverse gifts, celebrates what is held in common and respects contribution to community with its heritage (§§39-40). "Optional homogeneity" of self-selected groups with similar tastes and mentality is eschewed by as lessening apostolic and religious witness. Religious are together “not because [they] have chosen one another, but because [they] have been chosen by the Lord" (§41).
True religious community requires concrete implementation "through patient and persevering daily efforts" (§43) in "a convergence of yeses to God" (§44) in a spiritual ambience of obedience, poverty and chastity. Clarity re: charism and self-identity are crucial to religious community (§45). A non-descript "generic" approach to charism or involvement in "ecclesial movements" or confusing roles of laity and religious or accommodating excessively to family needs reduce the witness of community life (§46). There are "communities...with no one in charge" and others which "make all decisions collegially" such that "individual paths" gain priority and the true "function of authority" is blurred (§48). "Authoritarianism" and "communitarianism" are to be avoided (§52). Common life is "as important as apostolic life." Apostolic needs do not justify or excuse "defective community life" (§55).
But, no true religious community can be "turned in on itself" (§58). Though different for various institutes, common life and mission cannot be opposed to one another, nor can mission be emphasized such that "life in common" becomes "an option” rather than integral to religious life" (§59). Even urgent pastoral concerns cannot justify abandoning fidelity to religious community (§61). Participation in ecclesial movements ought not to divide community (§62).
Contemporary circumstances that impinge on life in common, including evangelization of the poor (§63a), but "undifferentiated service to the poor" should not render fidelity to community "relatively less important" in fact or in appearance (§63b). FLC comments on the importance and difficulties of smaller communities (§64), and reaffirms "common life in a house of the institute is essential for religious life" with exceptions remaining exceptions, always evaluated and authorized by competent superiors (§65). Common life is still the form of living normally to be observed by all religious, so prudence is needed in seeking and assigning works (§65a).
Mere participation in meetings and community celebrations is not considered sufficient "to be fully a religious" (§65c). Communities "in which, unfortunately, the majority of members no longer live in community...would no longer be able to be considered true religious." But, FLC simply states that in such cases "Superiors and religious are invited to reflect seriously on this sorrowful outcome" and are encouraged to resume the practice of religious life in common (§65e).
FLC notes difficulties of common life unique for religious in mission territories (§66). It cites difficulties from reorganization and relocation of apostolates in recent decades (§67). It gives special attention to the witness and service of religious who are elderly or ill or retired as being at the heart of the community "in a new and effective manner" (§68). FLC encourages appropriate contact and cooperation with laity, but notes that communities must first have a sound grasp and clear expression of their true identity and fundamental charism. "Living together of religious and laity" is "unacceptable" in view of the different and distinctive lifestyles which characterize religious and laity (§70).
In concluding, FLC states that true "effectiveness of religious life depends on the quality of the fraternal life in common" and recognizes the ideals and demands of this may appear "daunting" at times because of past wounds, present difficulties and impending challenges. It calls religious to embrace a life beyond merely human capacities and expectations to build together day by day community in the Lord which, in patience and self-denial, manifests the truly transcendent reality of religious life (§71).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
"Fraternal Life in Community" is long but compact. The introduction (§§ 1-7) and first section (§§ 8-10) describe community as a place for becoming brothers and sisters (§§ 11-57) and as a place and subject of mission (§§ 58-70). Its tone is serious and sensitive; content is contemporary and important.
The introduction (§§1-7) is a realistic, non-defensive presentation of theological, canonical and social realities re: changes in community noting "positive" & "questionable" changes wherein common life has "suffered a certain loss of tone" when return to Gospel sources and to the original charism has been partial or weak (§1). Stark and honest, it notes religious communities can be a Gospel presence in society or can conform to values of the world (§1). It sees ecclesiology as most significant, citing conciliar affirmation in LG that religious life belongs to the Church’s life and holiness (§2). Community is participation in and witness to the mystery of the Church (§2a). Religious life is gift to it (§2b).
FLC points out "two aspects" of community: (1) the spiritual bond of communion of hearts united in Christ and animated by charity; (2) visible common life in lawfully constituted religious houses with fidelity to the same norms and collaborating in the same actions and services (§3). It recognizes difficulties from various causes such as: influence of Third World developments; emphasis on personal freedom and human rights; advancement of women; the contemporary communications explosion; and combined factors of secularism and consumerism and hedonism in modern society (§4). It addresses changes specific to religious life, such as: (a) emergence of smaller, more homogeneous communities; (b) practical responses to new needs beyond traditional apostolates; (c) the secularized context of professionalism, often considering common life as "an obstacle to the apostolate or merely a functional instrument"; (d) renewed awareness of interpersonal relationships; and (e) the new, more participative governance structures in religious institutes. FLC invites any who are distanced from the ideal of common life to consider its necessity for religious institutes and societies of apostolic life (§6).
Religious community is a vocation to communion with God and one another, which includes equality, forgiveness in love and unity but which is not without tension and sacrifice (§9). Community cannot be treated as having a single expression, but daily common life, prayer and apostolate are "essential and distinctive" to religious life (§10), and religious are "called to live together" as a sign of communion (§11). It acknowledges living in common can seem, at times, beyond human strength and a waste of energy in an "activist and individualistic culture" (§12). Prayer in common is central to the quality of community (§13) with emphasis on Liturgy of the Hours and the Eucharist (§14) Common life requires fidelity and perseverance (§16) despite commitments and overwork and fatigue (§17). It requires ascetical self-denial (§22), patience learning (§23) and a certain objectivity (§24).
Communities cannot avoid all conflict (§26) and must cultivate "respect, kindness, sincerity, self-control, tactfulness, a sense of humor and a spirit of self control" with a joyful simplicity, clarity, trust, capacity for dialogue, and sincere acceptance of mutual, beneficial discipline (§27). It warns against pitfalls of overwork, excessive zeal for isolated causes, and constant self-analysis as destructive of joyful life in community (§28). It notes the importance of communication skills for the purpose of strengthening life together (§§29-33) and a correlative caution re: indiscriminate use of mass media as community entertainment (§35). Meaningful maturity and self-actualization are integral to spiritual and cultural maturity (§36), while genuine, healthy affectivity is affirmed as fundamental for life together (§37). Not minimizing potential difficulties (§38) or effects of individualism (§39), true communion results from convergence of diverse gifts, celebrates what is held in common and respects contribution to community with its heritage (§§39-40). "Optional homogeneity" of self-selected groups with similar tastes and mentality is eschewed by as lessening apostolic and religious witness. Religious are together “not because [they] have chosen one another, but because [they] have been chosen by the Lord" (§41).
True religious community requires concrete implementation "through patient and persevering daily efforts" (§43) in "a convergence of yeses to God" (§44) in a spiritual ambience of obedience, poverty and chastity. Clarity re: charism and self-identity are crucial to religious community (§45). A non-descript "generic" approach to charism or involvement in "ecclesial movements" or confusing roles of laity and religious or accommodating excessively to family needs reduce the witness of community life (§46). There are "communities...with no one in charge" and others which "make all decisions collegially" such that "individual paths" gain priority and the true "function of authority" is blurred (§48). "Authoritarianism" and "communitarianism" are to be avoided (§52). Common life is "as important as apostolic life." Apostolic needs do not justify or excuse "defective community life" (§55).
But, no true religious community can be "turned in on itself" (§58). Though different for various institutes, common life and mission cannot be opposed to one another, nor can mission be emphasized such that "life in common" becomes "an option” rather than integral to religious life" (§59). Even urgent pastoral concerns cannot justify abandoning fidelity to religious community (§61). Participation in ecclesial movements ought not to divide community (§62).
Contemporary circumstances that impinge on life in common, including evangelization of the poor (§63a), but "undifferentiated service to the poor" should not render fidelity to community "relatively less important" in fact or in appearance (§63b). FLC comments on the importance and difficulties of smaller communities (§64), and reaffirms "common life in a house of the institute is essential for religious life" with exceptions remaining exceptions, always evaluated and authorized by competent superiors (§65). Common life is still the form of living normally to be observed by all religious, so prudence is needed in seeking and assigning works (§65a).
Mere participation in meetings and community celebrations is not considered sufficient "to be fully a religious" (§65c). Communities "in which, unfortunately, the majority of members no longer live in community...would no longer be able to be considered true religious." But, FLC simply states that in such cases "Superiors and religious are invited to reflect seriously on this sorrowful outcome" and are encouraged to resume the practice of religious life in common (§65e).
FLC notes difficulties of common life unique for religious in mission territories (§66). It cites difficulties from reorganization and relocation of apostolates in recent decades (§67). It gives special attention to the witness and service of religious who are elderly or ill or retired as being at the heart of the community "in a new and effective manner" (§68). FLC encourages appropriate contact and cooperation with laity, but notes that communities must first have a sound grasp and clear expression of their true identity and fundamental charism. "Living together of religious and laity" is "unacceptable" in view of the different and distinctive lifestyles which characterize religious and laity (§70).
In concluding, FLC states that true "effectiveness of religious life depends on the quality of the fraternal life in common" and recognizes the ideals and demands of this may appear "daunting" at times because of past wounds, present difficulties and impending challenges. It calls religious to embrace a life beyond merely human capacities and expectations to build together day by day community in the Lord which, in patience and self-denial, manifests the truly transcendent reality of religious life (§71).
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Vita Consecrata
SUMMARY(1) of Vita Consecrata – Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II, 25 March 1996
[Synod Announced DEC 1991; Lineamenta NOV 1992; Instrumentum laboris JUN 1994; Synod OCT 1994]
Vita Consecrata, the apostolic exhortation resulting from the 1994 Synod of Bishops, is rather long(2) and occasionally is repetitious. It presents one truly new and very important aspect regarding life consecrated by the evangelical counsels which cncerns the theological context and meaning as well as the spiritual importance of consecrated persons as icons of the Transfiguration. This means reigious are specifically to represent and reflect the transcendence, the immanence, and the intimacy of the Transfiguration of Jesus as experienced by Peter, James, and John. Elements of theme, presented primarily in ##14-16, can be recognized repeatedly throughout the exhortation.
The document is divided into five identifiable parts, namely: an Introduction (##1-13); three chapters entitled, respectively, Confessio Trinitatis (##14-70), Signum Fraternitas (##41-71); Servitium Caritatis (##72-103) and a brief Conclusion (##1-4-112). Although it recognizes certain recent problems and even initiates several commissions to study various questions, the exhortation is very positive and pastoral in presenting both a comprehensive overview and a solid theological basis for life consecrated by the evangelical counsels. Because of its length and repetition, the following sections may be helpful reading to assess its significant content and its encouraging tone.
The purpose and theological setting in ##13-16 are actually worthy of meditation in the “configuration” to Christ which consecrated life engenders in each person. Also worthy of note are the objective excellence (#18) and transcendent witness (#20) of consecrated as a gift to the Church. VC presents “the first missionary duty of consecrated persons” as a mission “to themselves” so that, from the core of their being as reflected in a lifestyle revealing the ideal they profess, consecrated persons in the Church are actually signs of Christ in the world (#25). The specific difference for consecrated life is that it is not a “necessary” consequence of Baptism but, rather, a freely chosen consequence of it (##30-31), thus manifesting the transcendence of the Church’s holiness (#33). Fidelity, perseverance, competence and regard for the Rule (#37)—along with rediscovery of asceticism and renewed prayer in the context of deep friendship with God--are eloquently urged in response to the “temptations” which lead so many astray in society today (#38). Community is considered as a “God enlightened space,” while the elderly and ill are cited as examples of witness to complete dedication (#44). Communities manifesting qualities of concern, of communication, of responsibility, and of forgiveness are considered as crucial to sound consecrated life today (#45). “Commitment to Faithfulness,” rather than apostolic success, is presented as most important for each consecrated person (#63), while “making Christ present” in “personal witness” is seen as more significant than external works (##72 and 76). Seven key characteristics of the “prophetic dimension” of consecrated life are described #84), along with a call for consistency between prophetic proclamation and daily life (#85). The evangelical counsels themselves are explained as living responses to the major challenges of modern society throughout the world (##88-92).
Like the initial comments, the personally expressed exhortations in the conclusion (##104-109) and the final prayer (##110-112) offer worthwhile points which all might ponder prayerfully.(3)
___________________________________
1 Prepared to be deliberately very brief but informative for reading the document itself.
2 Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Latin text of 138 pgs. See ORIGINS, April 4, 1996, entire edition of 37pgs.
3 See ##3, 13-14, 16, 20, 25, 30-33, 37-39, 41, 44-45, 48, 57, 63, 65, 72, 76, 80, 84-85, 87-92, 93, 104-112.
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
[Synod Announced DEC 1991; Lineamenta NOV 1992; Instrumentum laboris JUN 1994; Synod OCT 1994]
Vita Consecrata, the apostolic exhortation resulting from the 1994 Synod of Bishops, is rather long(2) and occasionally is repetitious. It presents one truly new and very important aspect regarding life consecrated by the evangelical counsels which cncerns the theological context and meaning as well as the spiritual importance of consecrated persons as icons of the Transfiguration. This means reigious are specifically to represent and reflect the transcendence, the immanence, and the intimacy of the Transfiguration of Jesus as experienced by Peter, James, and John. Elements of theme, presented primarily in ##14-16, can be recognized repeatedly throughout the exhortation.
The document is divided into five identifiable parts, namely: an Introduction (##1-13); three chapters entitled, respectively, Confessio Trinitatis (##14-70), Signum Fraternitas (##41-71); Servitium Caritatis (##72-103) and a brief Conclusion (##1-4-112). Although it recognizes certain recent problems and even initiates several commissions to study various questions, the exhortation is very positive and pastoral in presenting both a comprehensive overview and a solid theological basis for life consecrated by the evangelical counsels. Because of its length and repetition, the following sections may be helpful reading to assess its significant content and its encouraging tone.
The purpose and theological setting in ##13-16 are actually worthy of meditation in the “configuration” to Christ which consecrated life engenders in each person. Also worthy of note are the objective excellence (#18) and transcendent witness (#20) of consecrated as a gift to the Church. VC presents “the first missionary duty of consecrated persons” as a mission “to themselves” so that, from the core of their being as reflected in a lifestyle revealing the ideal they profess, consecrated persons in the Church are actually signs of Christ in the world (#25). The specific difference for consecrated life is that it is not a “necessary” consequence of Baptism but, rather, a freely chosen consequence of it (##30-31), thus manifesting the transcendence of the Church’s holiness (#33). Fidelity, perseverance, competence and regard for the Rule (#37)—along with rediscovery of asceticism and renewed prayer in the context of deep friendship with God--are eloquently urged in response to the “temptations” which lead so many astray in society today (#38). Community is considered as a “God enlightened space,” while the elderly and ill are cited as examples of witness to complete dedication (#44). Communities manifesting qualities of concern, of communication, of responsibility, and of forgiveness are considered as crucial to sound consecrated life today (#45). “Commitment to Faithfulness,” rather than apostolic success, is presented as most important for each consecrated person (#63), while “making Christ present” in “personal witness” is seen as more significant than external works (##72 and 76). Seven key characteristics of the “prophetic dimension” of consecrated life are described #84), along with a call for consistency between prophetic proclamation and daily life (#85). The evangelical counsels themselves are explained as living responses to the major challenges of modern society throughout the world (##88-92).
Like the initial comments, the personally expressed exhortations in the conclusion (##104-109) and the final prayer (##110-112) offer worthwhile points which all might ponder prayerfully.(3)
___________________________________
1 Prepared to be deliberately very brief but informative for reading the document itself.
2 Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Latin text of 138 pgs. See ORIGINS, April 4, 1996, entire edition of 37pgs.
3 See ##3, 13-14, 16, 20, 25, 30-33, 37-39, 41, 44-45, 48, 57, 63, 65, 72, 76, 80, 84-85, 87-92, 93, 104-112.
Prepared by Sister Elizabeth McDonough, OP, JCD, STL
Monday, March 1, 2010
Schneiders' Essays Commentary
Analysis of the NCR essays by Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM
Note: This is an analysis of the five essays by Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, that were published in National Catholic Reporter January 4-8, 2010. The author has given me permission to post the analysis here, but prefers to remain anonymous.
Sister Sandra Schneiders, I.H.M., a professor emerita of the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, has recently concluded a five part essay that offers her commentary on the Holy See’s appointment of a visitator to study women religious in this country, and a visitator to do a doctrinal assessment the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. In a preliminary interview given to the National Catholic Reporter in which her essays were published from January 4-8, Sister Schneiders asserted that there is a danger that candidates to women’s religious life will not pursue vocations “to the following of Jesus in ministerial life” because they will be “struggling with a patriarchal institution which denies their full human and Christian personhood.” Her objective in writing these essays was to “counteract” this and other “dangers” that she perceives in the hope of protecting “the real meaning of religious life.” In describing the visitation, Sister Schneiders in her interview identified it as a “persecution.” It is her contention that the manner in which religious life in the United States is lived and which has prompted the visitation is a resistance to “the ecclesiastical status quo of the Church understood as a divine right absolute monarchy” and to “hierarchical absolutism in general.” In her estimation, this resistance is essential so that religious may “participate[] in the prophetic ministry of Jesus.” She concluded her interview by declaring that “the very heart of ministerial religious life is its participation in the prophetic ministry of Jesus” which generates “tension between the status quo of Church as hierarchical power structure enforcing doctrinal uniformity and moral subordination, and the Church as the Body of Christ...”
Essay 1—January 4, 2010
As will be seen in the following summary, it appears that Sister Schneiders’s positions and underlying arguments conflict with the very authorities, such as the texts of the Second Vatican Council, on which she relies. Moreover, from the outset of her essays, it is clear that she acknowledges no reason or reasons why the Holy See should be concerned about the state of religious life in women’s orders. For her (Essay 1), the visitation of women religious is a “surprise attack”, a “crime”, perpetrated on an “unlikely target.” In her estimation, the Church should be focusing its concern on the “massive and unaddressed problems besetting the clergy and hierarchy.” She fails to acknowledge the recent visitation of seminaries in the United States, the canonical proceedings against clergy accused of a variety of misconducts, and the visitation of the Legionnaires of Christ. She believes that a catalyst for the visitation is from “a small group of extremely conservative women religious” who held a conference at Stonehill College USA in September 2008 whom she labels as “accusers.” Sister Schneiders was not in attendance at this conference. She did not witness the diversity of women religious present nor their numbers nor heard their legitimate concerns about the internal problems of women’s religious life. Moreover, Sister Schneiders fails to register the legitimate concerns raised by her fellow sisters who did attend this conference.
A principal concern raised by Schneiders throughout her five-part series which she introduces in Essay 1 is that the visitation is an “assault” that “enforce[s] conscience-violating policies or practices.” One illustration upon which she relies is the “Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion” paid for by Catholics for a Free Choice published in The New York Times on October 7, 1984. Amongst the claims made by signatories of Ms. Frances Kissling’s advertisement is that, in spite of the Church’s teachings on abortion, there exists “in fact” “a diversity of opinions regarding abortion” “among committed Catholics.” Sister Schneiders appears not to have any difficulties with the advertisement’s substantive content that contravenes the Church’s teachings on abortion. Nevertheless, Sister Schneiders asserts that the signatories were simply “asking for honest discussion (not a change of doctrine or even practice) of the issue of abortion.” However, the Statement published in The New York Times does not support her contention. The statement clearly advocates changes in doctrine and practice by Catholics regarding abortion.
A major thesis presented in Essay 1 and continued throughout her five-part series is the argument that women’s religious life is “a symbolic scapegoat in the power struggle in the contemporary church between the promoters of the renewal initiated by Vatican II and a program of tridentine [sic] restoration.” While relying on the authority of the Second Vatican Council, Sister Schneiders’s allegations are not supported by the texts of the Council as shall be demonstrated in the commentary on the remaining essays.
Essay 2—January 5, 2010
In this installment, Sister Schneiders addresses the “prophetic life form” of religious life that is modeled on “that of Jesus’ original band of disciples.” Interestingly, she claims as her textual support Pope John Paul II’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata of 1996, NN. 84 ff., wherein the Holy Father discussed “the prophetic character of the consecrated life.” However, Sister Schneiders does not rely on an essential point made by John Paul II in his exhortation. For example, the Pope noted that in exercising their charismatic gifts with the faithful, religious will proceed in “full harmony with the Church’s Magisterium and discipline.” Vita Consecrata, N. 85. This point is reiterated in N. 97 where John Paul asserted that religious must “ensure the preservation of their unique Catholic identity in complete fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium.” Sister Schneider’s claims are in conflict with this. For example, in Essay 4, Sister Schneiders demonstrates her failure to follow Vita Consecrata when she contends that religious, in exercising their “prophetic ministry”, are “not an enforcement agency” for the hierarchy’s teaching or practice. She maintains that this status of religious [not being “an enforcement agency for the hierarchy’s teaching or practice”] is particularly important “in situations which touch deeply into the lives of good people trying to live conscientiously and in which the teaching authority of the hierarchy (the magisterium [sic]) has not been able to ‘make its case’ to the Church as the People of God. In such cases, there is genuine (even if forbidden and condemned) pluralism of belief and behavior, and even actual valid (even if forbidden and condemned) dissent in the Church. Church teaching, to be considered authoritative, must not only [be] ‘promulgated’ (announced and adequately explained) but also ‘received’ (accepted by the believing Church).”
She then relies on the illustration of dissent to Humanae Vitae to make graphic her point. But this assertion is in tension and conflicts with a critical text upon which she relies in her series, i.e., Lumen Gentium—The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, in particular Chapter VI, on Religious. Sister Schneiders appears to develop a “shadow Magisterium” that conflicts with the Magisterium on important matters including those issues treated in Pope Paul’s encyclical Humanae Vitae.
Schneiders misreads or misinterprets Lumen Gentium, and she begins demonstrating this in her second essay. While she claims that religious are not “an enforcement agency” of the Church, Lumen Gentium reminds all that religious are an element of “the militia of Christ”, and their liberty is “strengthened by obedience” to the Church and her teachings. N. 43. While she also suggests that religious are not an “ecclesiastical work force to be deployed by the hierarchy” but are called to a variety of work places including those where “particular groups and peoples of all kinds (some of whom are rejected by the religious institution itself)”, Lumen Gentium, N. 45, is clear that “[i]t is the duty of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to regulate the practice of the evangelical counsels by law.” Moreover, one must not forget that the hierarchy not only approve the rules presented by religious but also has the obligation to adjust them. This section of the Dogmatic Constitution also notes that while religious may be under the jurisdiction of local ordinaries, the Supreme Pontiff reserves the right to subject them to himself “alone.” These points from Lumen Gentium are not relied upon nor acknowledged by Sister Schneiders even though she purports to base her argument on the Dogmatic Constitution.
Essay 3—January 6, 2010
This essay focuses principally on her description of the life of Jesus and his prophetic ministry. Her intention here appears to be that of drawing a parallel between the persecution and criticism Jesus faced from the Jewish authorities and those religious today who also engage in “prophetic ministry.”
While acknowledging that there are “some men of integrity, holiness, and compassion holding office in the Church,” she asserts that “popes can be wrong, even culpably so; bishops can be criminals; priests can be embezzlers or sexual predators. One thing is certain: hierarchical status, office in the Church, is no guarantee that the speaker or his message comes from God.” Schneiders does not concede that religious and their “prophetic ministry” can also share in the sinfulness that she attributes to some members of the hierarchy. She fails to acknowledge that bishops, with the priest and deacon helpers, both serve the community and have the solemn duty to preside in the place of God. Lumen Gentium, N. 20. By contrast, she contends that the prophetic ministry of religious requires no intervening party and is in direct relation with God without any intermediary authority. She further claims that the “essence of prophetic obedience” is not to the will of another, i.e., a member of the hierarchy, but to “[d]iscernment based on attentive listening.” This assertion also appears to be in conflict with the Dogmatic Constitution’s understanding that Episcopal consecration brings the obligation and office of teaching and governing. N. 21. The next section of the Dogmatic Constitution, N. 22, further recognizes that the college of bishops “has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head” and in whom the “power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact” for the Pontiff has “full, supreme and universal power over the Church.” Sister Schneiders’s assertions regarding the independent prophetic ministry of religious fail to accord with these provisions of the Dogmatic Constitution when she concludes this essay with the following statement: “No matter how highly placed in the religious institution they might be, human beings do not take God’s place in the life of believers. To pretend otherwise is blasphemy on the part of those who claim to do so and idolatry on the part of those who accord to humans the obedience that belongs to God alone... Coming to grips, in genuine obedience to God, with the tension between their prophetic vocation and the demands of ecclesiastical authority is at the heart of the current struggle between religious and the Vatican.”
It would thus appear that Lumen Gentium is, for her, a form of blasphemy and idolatry, to use her own words of characterization.
Essay 4—January 7, 2010
This is a particularly fascinating element of the series. It begins with an important recognition that the prophetic ministry of religious life requires humility. However, the essay quickly gives way to more problematic assertions. A notable one is her claim that “The religious today, as religious, is not ordained, not a part of the hierarchical structure of the Church.” In offering this contention, she relies upon N. 43 of Lumen Gentium. But as will be demonstrated, her understanding of this provision is deeply flawed. First of all, Lumen Gentium proclaims that the Church is hierarchical, e.g., N. 8; and, Chapter III On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate. Her reliance on N. 43 is further misplaced because this component of Lumen Gentium clearly states that, “From the point of view of the divine and hierarchical structure of the Church, the religious state of life is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. But, rather, the faithful of Christ are called by God from both these states of life so that they might enjoy this particular gift in the life of the Church and thus each in one’s own way, may be of some advantage to the salvific mission of the Church.” Moreover, the same section proclaims that “Church authority [i.e., including the hierarchy] has the duty, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of interpreting these evangelical counsels, of regulating their practice and finally to build on them stable forms of living.”
Schneiders’s departure from the Magisterium continues. She contends that while clerics make promises of obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors, “[n]one of this is true of religious. Religious make their vows to God (not to their superiors or Church officials) to live religious life.” [See conflict with discussion of N. 14 of Perfectae Caritatis, below] She implies that there is little or no juridical connection of obedience to the hierarchical authority when she states that, "In the concrete, this means that religious, unlike the clergy, are not agents of the institutional Church as Jesus was not an agent of institutional Judaism. Although, as members of the Church, they are subject to Church authority when it is legitimately exercised, it is not their ‘job’ or responsibility as religious to teach, defend, or enforce Church teaching, law, or policy. Because they make public vows (as do married people) religious are ‘public persons’ in the Church which means they are bound by canon law in relation to the obligations of their state of life. Religious (like any non-cleric), may exercise a ministry, e.g., teaching in the RCIA program, which obliges them to correctly represent, in their official ministerial capacity, the teaching and discipline of the magisterium. [sic] But this obligation arises from the particular ministry they are exercising, not from their state of life in the Church.”
Relying on Canon 586, she maintains that, “The purpose of the life is not to perpetuate particular Congregations nor to staff Church institutions; it is to live intensely the witness to the Gospel to which the Congregation is called and for as long as it is so called. As long as an order and its members are able to live religious life according to its own founding charism and approved constitutions intrusion by ecclesiastical authority into its internal affairs is not only unwarranted; it is unjustifiable and counter-productive.” [Italics added] Nevertheless she has, perhaps inadvertently, recognized that hierarchical authorities do retain the jurisdiction to intercede when an order or its members are not able to live religious life according to the order’s own founding charism and approved constitutions, intervention by ecclesiastical authority into their internal affairs is in order. A large segment of this essay repeats her assertions about “conscience” and “pluralism” and “dissent” which have already been examined in the discussion of previous essays.
Once again, Sister Schneiders reiterates her often-made claim that religious “are not called as part of the hierarchy to act as agents of the institution but as prophets among the People of God.” But this statement is a challenge to the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life, Perfectae Caritatis, because N. 2(c) of this Decree specifically states that, “All institutes should share in the life of the Church, adapting as their own and implementing in accordance with their own characteristics the Church’s undertakings and aims in matters biblical, liturgical, dogmatic, pastoral, ecumenical, missionary and social.” To intensify this point, N. 5 further states, “Since the Church has accepted their surrender of self they should realize they are also dedicated to its service.” [Italics supplied] Further tension between her understanding of the nature of religious life and the conception presented by the Second Vatican Council is found in the Council’s proclamation that, “In these communities apostolic and charitable activity belongs to the very nature of the religious life, seeing that it is a holy service and a work characteristic of love, entrusted to them by the Church to be carried out in its name. Therefore, the whole religious life of their members should be inspired by an apostolic spirit and all their apostolic activity formed by the spirit of religion.” N. 8. [Italics added]
Regarding Schneiders’s contrary claims that there is no requirement by religious to submit to authority, N. 14 clearly states that, “Religious, therefore, in the spirit of faith and love for the divine will should humbly obey their superiors according to their rules and constitutions.” The obedience of religious is indeed due to God but through the superior. As Pope John Paul II stated in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata, to which Sister Schneiders refers and relies upon in Essay 2, “In the consecrated life the role of Superiors, including local Superiors, has always been of great importance for the spiritual life and for mission... In an atmosphere strongly affected by individualism, it is not an easy thing to foster recognition and acceptance of the role which authority plays for the benefit of all. Nevertheless, its importance must be reaffirmed as essential for strengthening fraternal communion and in order not to render vain the obedience professed. While authority must be above all fraternal and spiritual, and while those entrusted with it must know how to involve their brothers and sisters in the decision-making process, it should still be remembered that the final word belongs to authority and, consequently, that authority has the right to see that decisions taken are respected.” N. 43.
In spite of her contention that religious “are not called as part of the hierarchy to act as agents of the institution but as prophets among the People of God,” Pope John Paul clearly exhorted in Vita Consecrata that religious life is and must be in communion with the Church and her teachings—sentire cum ecclesia. N. 46. As the Pope said, “The sense of ecclesial communion, developing into a spirituality of communion, promotes a way of thinking, speaking and acting which enables the Church to grow in depth and extension... In founders and foundresses we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church’s life, and in their ready obedience to the Bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff... A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the Magisterium of the Bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication. Because consecrated persons have a special place in the Church, their attitude in this regard is of immense importance for the whole People of God. Their witness of filial love will give power and forcefulness to their apostolic activity which, in the context of the prophetic mission of all the baptized, is generally distinguished by special forms of cooperation with the Hierarchy.” N. 46.
Schneiders claims that the charismatic autonomy of religious women is free from the jurisdiction of the Church’s hierarchical authority. Yet her position conflicts with another element of Vita Consecrata where John Paul, in emphasizing the universality of the Church, stated, “Consecrated persons are called to be a leaven of communion at the service of the mission of the universal Church by the very fact that the manifold charisms of their respective Institutes are granted by the Holy Spirit for the good of the entire Mystical Body, whose upbuilding they must serve... This, precisely, is the scope of the particular bond of communion which the different Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life have with the Successor of Peter in his ministry of unity and missionary universality...” N. 47. John Paul continued his exhortation by declaring that: “The Bishop is the father and pastor of the particular Church in its entirety. It is his task to discern and respect individual charisms, and to promote and coordinate them... For their part, consecrated persons will not fail to cooperate generously with the particular Churches as much as they can and with respect for their own charism, working in full communion with the Bishop in the areas of evangelization, catechesis and parish life. It is helpful to recall that, in coordinating their service to the universal Church with their service to the particular Churches, Institutes may not invoke rightful autonomy, or even the exemption which a number of them enjoy, in order to justify choices which actually conflict with the demands of organic communion called for by a healthy ecclesial life. Instead, the pastoral initiatives of consecrated persons should be determined and carried out in cordial and open dialogue between Bishops and Superiors of the different Institutes. Special attention by Bishops to the vocation and mission of Institutes, and respect by the latter for the ministry of Bishops, with ready acceptance of their concrete pastoral directives for the life of the Diocese: these are two intimately linked expressions of that one ecclesial charity by which all work to build up the organic communion — charismatic and at the same time hierarchically structured — of the whole People of God.” N. 49. Sister Schneiders disavows these important points in her understanding of religious life as explained in Essay 4 and elsewhere.
Some concluding remarks about these essays are in order at this stage. First of all, Sister Scheiders’s five essays require a careful study in their entirety. Second, she concludes her fourth essay with direct and indirect criticisms of Church authorities. Here she criticizes “conservative” religious, bishops, and laity. Furthermore, she characterizes the visitation as the Vatican trying to “rein in” religious who had “gone too far” or “gotten out of control.” She implies a parallel between the Taliban and those who exercise appropriate Church authority and suggests that the “investigation” is “simply a patriarchal crack-down on women’s autonomy.” She further complains that the “hierarchical Church” is “a pyramidal divine right monarchy.” She reserves special criticism for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI when she claims, “Ecclesiastical authority, at least in the reigns of the last two Popes, often has been an exercise in the suppression of all voices except its own, branding as ‘dissent’ (always understood as sinful disobedience rather than mature critical engagement) any position, and sometimes even the consideration of arguments for any position, at variance with ‘official teaching.’ Religious obedience, however, is precisely an exercise of a prophetic vocation calling its members to carefully discern the meaning of the Word of God in and for a particular situation... [B]eginning seriously with the pontificate of John Paul II, the hierarchical Church began a retrenchment from Vatican II which has become increasingly a tridentine restorationism under the current Pope. These two visions of Church are running, one forward and one backward, on parallel ecclesiological tracks.”
As has already been demonstrated, her attitude expressed in the words just quoted is in conflict with Magisterial texts cited in this executive summary and purportedly relied on by Sister Schneiders throughout this series of essays she has authored. Although she claims that Church authority of recent times has begun “a retrenchment from Vatican II,” she fails to see her own abandonment of the provisions found in the texts of the Second Vatican Council.
Essay 5—January 8, 2010
In her concluding installment, Sister Schneiders reiterates points previously made in the earlier four essays. However, the language used to critique proper ecclesiastical authority is intensified, e.g., a suggestion that it has something in common with the “satanic” world of Jesus’s time. Furthermore she complains about the “re-centralization of power in the Vatican” [she makes many points in all essays about the “power struggle” she sees within the Church]; and, she expresses grave concern regarding “the re-clericalization of ministry.” She observes that religious “do not always have the luxury of choosing whether [they] will suffer at the hands of secular powers or of the Church’s power structure.” She offers no acknowledgment that many in the Church today, including members of the hierarchy, suffer grievously in their labors for the Church. Once again she maintains mistakenly that, “Religious Life is not a grade on the hierarchical ladder; it does not belong to the hierarchical organization of the Church at all. It is a charismatically grounded close following and imitation of Jesus and his itinerant band of disciples. The vocation to prophetic ministry is intrinsic to this life form. This is true of the life form itself and therefore of Congregations and individual members.”
Her parting shot occurs in this paragraph that appears near the end of the final essay: “If, as I believe, [religious life] is the latter [‘job corps’ versus ‘a charismatically grounded prophetic ministry’] then the primary ‘offense’ of ministerial Religious is that they are reading the ‘signs of the times’ as a call to sustain and promote the renewal inaugurated by Vatican II while some officials of the institution itself are trying to restore the tridentine [sic] vision of the Church as a power structure defending itself against a threatening world that is promoting a culture of death. Like the disciples preaching Jesus as the crucified messiah when they had been told by the authorities that that interpretation of the paschal events was false, threatening to the authorities, and not to be proclaimed, Religious are embodying in their lives and proclaiming to others an interpretation of the Council that is not approved by many in the hierarchy. Rather than ‘obediently’ supporting the restoration, they are promoting the ongoing conciliar renewal in their own lives and among the laity.”
As it appears from her interpretations, her understanding of the Second Vatican Council is seriously flawed. END
Note: This is an analysis of the five essays by Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, that were published in National Catholic Reporter January 4-8, 2010. The author has given me permission to post the analysis here, but prefers to remain anonymous.
Sister Sandra Schneiders, I.H.M., a professor emerita of the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, has recently concluded a five part essay that offers her commentary on the Holy See’s appointment of a visitator to study women religious in this country, and a visitator to do a doctrinal assessment the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. In a preliminary interview given to the National Catholic Reporter in which her essays were published from January 4-8, Sister Schneiders asserted that there is a danger that candidates to women’s religious life will not pursue vocations “to the following of Jesus in ministerial life” because they will be “struggling with a patriarchal institution which denies their full human and Christian personhood.” Her objective in writing these essays was to “counteract” this and other “dangers” that she perceives in the hope of protecting “the real meaning of religious life.” In describing the visitation, Sister Schneiders in her interview identified it as a “persecution.” It is her contention that the manner in which religious life in the United States is lived and which has prompted the visitation is a resistance to “the ecclesiastical status quo of the Church understood as a divine right absolute monarchy” and to “hierarchical absolutism in general.” In her estimation, this resistance is essential so that religious may “participate[] in the prophetic ministry of Jesus.” She concluded her interview by declaring that “the very heart of ministerial religious life is its participation in the prophetic ministry of Jesus” which generates “tension between the status quo of Church as hierarchical power structure enforcing doctrinal uniformity and moral subordination, and the Church as the Body of Christ...”
Essay 1—January 4, 2010
As will be seen in the following summary, it appears that Sister Schneiders’s positions and underlying arguments conflict with the very authorities, such as the texts of the Second Vatican Council, on which she relies. Moreover, from the outset of her essays, it is clear that she acknowledges no reason or reasons why the Holy See should be concerned about the state of religious life in women’s orders. For her (Essay 1), the visitation of women religious is a “surprise attack”, a “crime”, perpetrated on an “unlikely target.” In her estimation, the Church should be focusing its concern on the “massive and unaddressed problems besetting the clergy and hierarchy.” She fails to acknowledge the recent visitation of seminaries in the United States, the canonical proceedings against clergy accused of a variety of misconducts, and the visitation of the Legionnaires of Christ. She believes that a catalyst for the visitation is from “a small group of extremely conservative women religious” who held a conference at Stonehill College USA in September 2008 whom she labels as “accusers.” Sister Schneiders was not in attendance at this conference. She did not witness the diversity of women religious present nor their numbers nor heard their legitimate concerns about the internal problems of women’s religious life. Moreover, Sister Schneiders fails to register the legitimate concerns raised by her fellow sisters who did attend this conference.
A principal concern raised by Schneiders throughout her five-part series which she introduces in Essay 1 is that the visitation is an “assault” that “enforce[s] conscience-violating policies or practices.” One illustration upon which she relies is the “Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion” paid for by Catholics for a Free Choice published in The New York Times on October 7, 1984. Amongst the claims made by signatories of Ms. Frances Kissling’s advertisement is that, in spite of the Church’s teachings on abortion, there exists “in fact” “a diversity of opinions regarding abortion” “among committed Catholics.” Sister Schneiders appears not to have any difficulties with the advertisement’s substantive content that contravenes the Church’s teachings on abortion. Nevertheless, Sister Schneiders asserts that the signatories were simply “asking for honest discussion (not a change of doctrine or even practice) of the issue of abortion.” However, the Statement published in The New York Times does not support her contention. The statement clearly advocates changes in doctrine and practice by Catholics regarding abortion.
A major thesis presented in Essay 1 and continued throughout her five-part series is the argument that women’s religious life is “a symbolic scapegoat in the power struggle in the contemporary church between the promoters of the renewal initiated by Vatican II and a program of tridentine [sic] restoration.” While relying on the authority of the Second Vatican Council, Sister Schneiders’s allegations are not supported by the texts of the Council as shall be demonstrated in the commentary on the remaining essays.
Essay 2—January 5, 2010
In this installment, Sister Schneiders addresses the “prophetic life form” of religious life that is modeled on “that of Jesus’ original band of disciples.” Interestingly, she claims as her textual support Pope John Paul II’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata of 1996, NN. 84 ff., wherein the Holy Father discussed “the prophetic character of the consecrated life.” However, Sister Schneiders does not rely on an essential point made by John Paul II in his exhortation. For example, the Pope noted that in exercising their charismatic gifts with the faithful, religious will proceed in “full harmony with the Church’s Magisterium and discipline.” Vita Consecrata, N. 85. This point is reiterated in N. 97 where John Paul asserted that religious must “ensure the preservation of their unique Catholic identity in complete fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium.” Sister Schneider’s claims are in conflict with this. For example, in Essay 4, Sister Schneiders demonstrates her failure to follow Vita Consecrata when she contends that religious, in exercising their “prophetic ministry”, are “not an enforcement agency” for the hierarchy’s teaching or practice. She maintains that this status of religious [not being “an enforcement agency for the hierarchy’s teaching or practice”] is particularly important “in situations which touch deeply into the lives of good people trying to live conscientiously and in which the teaching authority of the hierarchy (the magisterium [sic]) has not been able to ‘make its case’ to the Church as the People of God. In such cases, there is genuine (even if forbidden and condemned) pluralism of belief and behavior, and even actual valid (even if forbidden and condemned) dissent in the Church. Church teaching, to be considered authoritative, must not only [be] ‘promulgated’ (announced and adequately explained) but also ‘received’ (accepted by the believing Church).”
She then relies on the illustration of dissent to Humanae Vitae to make graphic her point. But this assertion is in tension and conflicts with a critical text upon which she relies in her series, i.e., Lumen Gentium—The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, in particular Chapter VI, on Religious. Sister Schneiders appears to develop a “shadow Magisterium” that conflicts with the Magisterium on important matters including those issues treated in Pope Paul’s encyclical Humanae Vitae.
Schneiders misreads or misinterprets Lumen Gentium, and she begins demonstrating this in her second essay. While she claims that religious are not “an enforcement agency” of the Church, Lumen Gentium reminds all that religious are an element of “the militia of Christ”, and their liberty is “strengthened by obedience” to the Church and her teachings. N. 43. While she also suggests that religious are not an “ecclesiastical work force to be deployed by the hierarchy” but are called to a variety of work places including those where “particular groups and peoples of all kinds (some of whom are rejected by the religious institution itself)”, Lumen Gentium, N. 45, is clear that “[i]t is the duty of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to regulate the practice of the evangelical counsels by law.” Moreover, one must not forget that the hierarchy not only approve the rules presented by religious but also has the obligation to adjust them. This section of the Dogmatic Constitution also notes that while religious may be under the jurisdiction of local ordinaries, the Supreme Pontiff reserves the right to subject them to himself “alone.” These points from Lumen Gentium are not relied upon nor acknowledged by Sister Schneiders even though she purports to base her argument on the Dogmatic Constitution.
Essay 3—January 6, 2010
This essay focuses principally on her description of the life of Jesus and his prophetic ministry. Her intention here appears to be that of drawing a parallel between the persecution and criticism Jesus faced from the Jewish authorities and those religious today who also engage in “prophetic ministry.”
While acknowledging that there are “some men of integrity, holiness, and compassion holding office in the Church,” she asserts that “popes can be wrong, even culpably so; bishops can be criminals; priests can be embezzlers or sexual predators. One thing is certain: hierarchical status, office in the Church, is no guarantee that the speaker or his message comes from God.” Schneiders does not concede that religious and their “prophetic ministry” can also share in the sinfulness that she attributes to some members of the hierarchy. She fails to acknowledge that bishops, with the priest and deacon helpers, both serve the community and have the solemn duty to preside in the place of God. Lumen Gentium, N. 20. By contrast, she contends that the prophetic ministry of religious requires no intervening party and is in direct relation with God without any intermediary authority. She further claims that the “essence of prophetic obedience” is not to the will of another, i.e., a member of the hierarchy, but to “[d]iscernment based on attentive listening.” This assertion also appears to be in conflict with the Dogmatic Constitution’s understanding that Episcopal consecration brings the obligation and office of teaching and governing. N. 21. The next section of the Dogmatic Constitution, N. 22, further recognizes that the college of bishops “has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head” and in whom the “power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact” for the Pontiff has “full, supreme and universal power over the Church.” Sister Schneiders’s assertions regarding the independent prophetic ministry of religious fail to accord with these provisions of the Dogmatic Constitution when she concludes this essay with the following statement: “No matter how highly placed in the religious institution they might be, human beings do not take God’s place in the life of believers. To pretend otherwise is blasphemy on the part of those who claim to do so and idolatry on the part of those who accord to humans the obedience that belongs to God alone... Coming to grips, in genuine obedience to God, with the tension between their prophetic vocation and the demands of ecclesiastical authority is at the heart of the current struggle between religious and the Vatican.”
It would thus appear that Lumen Gentium is, for her, a form of blasphemy and idolatry, to use her own words of characterization.
Essay 4—January 7, 2010
This is a particularly fascinating element of the series. It begins with an important recognition that the prophetic ministry of religious life requires humility. However, the essay quickly gives way to more problematic assertions. A notable one is her claim that “The religious today, as religious, is not ordained, not a part of the hierarchical structure of the Church.” In offering this contention, she relies upon N. 43 of Lumen Gentium. But as will be demonstrated, her understanding of this provision is deeply flawed. First of all, Lumen Gentium proclaims that the Church is hierarchical, e.g., N. 8; and, Chapter III On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate. Her reliance on N. 43 is further misplaced because this component of Lumen Gentium clearly states that, “From the point of view of the divine and hierarchical structure of the Church, the religious state of life is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. But, rather, the faithful of Christ are called by God from both these states of life so that they might enjoy this particular gift in the life of the Church and thus each in one’s own way, may be of some advantage to the salvific mission of the Church.” Moreover, the same section proclaims that “Church authority [i.e., including the hierarchy] has the duty, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of interpreting these evangelical counsels, of regulating their practice and finally to build on them stable forms of living.”
Schneiders’s departure from the Magisterium continues. She contends that while clerics make promises of obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors, “[n]one of this is true of religious. Religious make their vows to God (not to their superiors or Church officials) to live religious life.” [See conflict with discussion of N. 14 of Perfectae Caritatis, below] She implies that there is little or no juridical connection of obedience to the hierarchical authority when she states that, "In the concrete, this means that religious, unlike the clergy, are not agents of the institutional Church as Jesus was not an agent of institutional Judaism. Although, as members of the Church, they are subject to Church authority when it is legitimately exercised, it is not their ‘job’ or responsibility as religious to teach, defend, or enforce Church teaching, law, or policy. Because they make public vows (as do married people) religious are ‘public persons’ in the Church which means they are bound by canon law in relation to the obligations of their state of life. Religious (like any non-cleric), may exercise a ministry, e.g., teaching in the RCIA program, which obliges them to correctly represent, in their official ministerial capacity, the teaching and discipline of the magisterium. [sic] But this obligation arises from the particular ministry they are exercising, not from their state of life in the Church.”
Relying on Canon 586, she maintains that, “The purpose of the life is not to perpetuate particular Congregations nor to staff Church institutions; it is to live intensely the witness to the Gospel to which the Congregation is called and for as long as it is so called. As long as an order and its members are able to live religious life according to its own founding charism and approved constitutions intrusion by ecclesiastical authority into its internal affairs is not only unwarranted; it is unjustifiable and counter-productive.” [Italics added] Nevertheless she has, perhaps inadvertently, recognized that hierarchical authorities do retain the jurisdiction to intercede when an order or its members are not able to live religious life according to the order’s own founding charism and approved constitutions, intervention by ecclesiastical authority into their internal affairs is in order. A large segment of this essay repeats her assertions about “conscience” and “pluralism” and “dissent” which have already been examined in the discussion of previous essays.
Once again, Sister Schneiders reiterates her often-made claim that religious “are not called as part of the hierarchy to act as agents of the institution but as prophets among the People of God.” But this statement is a challenge to the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life, Perfectae Caritatis, because N. 2(c) of this Decree specifically states that, “All institutes should share in the life of the Church, adapting as their own and implementing in accordance with their own characteristics the Church’s undertakings and aims in matters biblical, liturgical, dogmatic, pastoral, ecumenical, missionary and social.” To intensify this point, N. 5 further states, “Since the Church has accepted their surrender of self they should realize they are also dedicated to its service.” [Italics supplied] Further tension between her understanding of the nature of religious life and the conception presented by the Second Vatican Council is found in the Council’s proclamation that, “In these communities apostolic and charitable activity belongs to the very nature of the religious life, seeing that it is a holy service and a work characteristic of love, entrusted to them by the Church to be carried out in its name. Therefore, the whole religious life of their members should be inspired by an apostolic spirit and all their apostolic activity formed by the spirit of religion.” N. 8. [Italics added]
Regarding Schneiders’s contrary claims that there is no requirement by religious to submit to authority, N. 14 clearly states that, “Religious, therefore, in the spirit of faith and love for the divine will should humbly obey their superiors according to their rules and constitutions.” The obedience of religious is indeed due to God but through the superior. As Pope John Paul II stated in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata, to which Sister Schneiders refers and relies upon in Essay 2, “In the consecrated life the role of Superiors, including local Superiors, has always been of great importance for the spiritual life and for mission... In an atmosphere strongly affected by individualism, it is not an easy thing to foster recognition and acceptance of the role which authority plays for the benefit of all. Nevertheless, its importance must be reaffirmed as essential for strengthening fraternal communion and in order not to render vain the obedience professed. While authority must be above all fraternal and spiritual, and while those entrusted with it must know how to involve their brothers and sisters in the decision-making process, it should still be remembered that the final word belongs to authority and, consequently, that authority has the right to see that decisions taken are respected.” N. 43.
In spite of her contention that religious “are not called as part of the hierarchy to act as agents of the institution but as prophets among the People of God,” Pope John Paul clearly exhorted in Vita Consecrata that religious life is and must be in communion with the Church and her teachings—sentire cum ecclesia. N. 46. As the Pope said, “The sense of ecclesial communion, developing into a spirituality of communion, promotes a way of thinking, speaking and acting which enables the Church to grow in depth and extension... In founders and foundresses we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church’s life, and in their ready obedience to the Bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff... A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the Magisterium of the Bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication. Because consecrated persons have a special place in the Church, their attitude in this regard is of immense importance for the whole People of God. Their witness of filial love will give power and forcefulness to their apostolic activity which, in the context of the prophetic mission of all the baptized, is generally distinguished by special forms of cooperation with the Hierarchy.” N. 46.
Schneiders claims that the charismatic autonomy of religious women is free from the jurisdiction of the Church’s hierarchical authority. Yet her position conflicts with another element of Vita Consecrata where John Paul, in emphasizing the universality of the Church, stated, “Consecrated persons are called to be a leaven of communion at the service of the mission of the universal Church by the very fact that the manifold charisms of their respective Institutes are granted by the Holy Spirit for the good of the entire Mystical Body, whose upbuilding they must serve... This, precisely, is the scope of the particular bond of communion which the different Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life have with the Successor of Peter in his ministry of unity and missionary universality...” N. 47. John Paul continued his exhortation by declaring that: “The Bishop is the father and pastor of the particular Church in its entirety. It is his task to discern and respect individual charisms, and to promote and coordinate them... For their part, consecrated persons will not fail to cooperate generously with the particular Churches as much as they can and with respect for their own charism, working in full communion with the Bishop in the areas of evangelization, catechesis and parish life. It is helpful to recall that, in coordinating their service to the universal Church with their service to the particular Churches, Institutes may not invoke rightful autonomy, or even the exemption which a number of them enjoy, in order to justify choices which actually conflict with the demands of organic communion called for by a healthy ecclesial life. Instead, the pastoral initiatives of consecrated persons should be determined and carried out in cordial and open dialogue between Bishops and Superiors of the different Institutes. Special attention by Bishops to the vocation and mission of Institutes, and respect by the latter for the ministry of Bishops, with ready acceptance of their concrete pastoral directives for the life of the Diocese: these are two intimately linked expressions of that one ecclesial charity by which all work to build up the organic communion — charismatic and at the same time hierarchically structured — of the whole People of God.” N. 49. Sister Schneiders disavows these important points in her understanding of religious life as explained in Essay 4 and elsewhere.
Some concluding remarks about these essays are in order at this stage. First of all, Sister Scheiders’s five essays require a careful study in their entirety. Second, she concludes her fourth essay with direct and indirect criticisms of Church authorities. Here she criticizes “conservative” religious, bishops, and laity. Furthermore, she characterizes the visitation as the Vatican trying to “rein in” religious who had “gone too far” or “gotten out of control.” She implies a parallel between the Taliban and those who exercise appropriate Church authority and suggests that the “investigation” is “simply a patriarchal crack-down on women’s autonomy.” She further complains that the “hierarchical Church” is “a pyramidal divine right monarchy.” She reserves special criticism for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI when she claims, “Ecclesiastical authority, at least in the reigns of the last two Popes, often has been an exercise in the suppression of all voices except its own, branding as ‘dissent’ (always understood as sinful disobedience rather than mature critical engagement) any position, and sometimes even the consideration of arguments for any position, at variance with ‘official teaching.’ Religious obedience, however, is precisely an exercise of a prophetic vocation calling its members to carefully discern the meaning of the Word of God in and for a particular situation... [B]eginning seriously with the pontificate of John Paul II, the hierarchical Church began a retrenchment from Vatican II which has become increasingly a tridentine restorationism under the current Pope. These two visions of Church are running, one forward and one backward, on parallel ecclesiological tracks.”
As has already been demonstrated, her attitude expressed in the words just quoted is in conflict with Magisterial texts cited in this executive summary and purportedly relied on by Sister Schneiders throughout this series of essays she has authored. Although she claims that Church authority of recent times has begun “a retrenchment from Vatican II,” she fails to see her own abandonment of the provisions found in the texts of the Second Vatican Council.
Essay 5—January 8, 2010
In her concluding installment, Sister Schneiders reiterates points previously made in the earlier four essays. However, the language used to critique proper ecclesiastical authority is intensified, e.g., a suggestion that it has something in common with the “satanic” world of Jesus’s time. Furthermore she complains about the “re-centralization of power in the Vatican” [she makes many points in all essays about the “power struggle” she sees within the Church]; and, she expresses grave concern regarding “the re-clericalization of ministry.” She observes that religious “do not always have the luxury of choosing whether [they] will suffer at the hands of secular powers or of the Church’s power structure.” She offers no acknowledgment that many in the Church today, including members of the hierarchy, suffer grievously in their labors for the Church. Once again she maintains mistakenly that, “Religious Life is not a grade on the hierarchical ladder; it does not belong to the hierarchical organization of the Church at all. It is a charismatically grounded close following and imitation of Jesus and his itinerant band of disciples. The vocation to prophetic ministry is intrinsic to this life form. This is true of the life form itself and therefore of Congregations and individual members.”
Her parting shot occurs in this paragraph that appears near the end of the final essay: “If, as I believe, [religious life] is the latter [‘job corps’ versus ‘a charismatically grounded prophetic ministry’] then the primary ‘offense’ of ministerial Religious is that they are reading the ‘signs of the times’ as a call to sustain and promote the renewal inaugurated by Vatican II while some officials of the institution itself are trying to restore the tridentine [sic] vision of the Church as a power structure defending itself against a threatening world that is promoting a culture of death. Like the disciples preaching Jesus as the crucified messiah when they had been told by the authorities that that interpretation of the paschal events was false, threatening to the authorities, and not to be proclaimed, Religious are embodying in their lives and proclaiming to others an interpretation of the Council that is not approved by many in the hierarchy. Rather than ‘obediently’ supporting the restoration, they are promoting the ongoing conciliar renewal in their own lives and among the laity.”
As it appears from her interpretations, her understanding of the Second Vatican Council is seriously flawed. END
Sisters' Survey Excerpt
Excerpt about Sisters' Survey from "Sisters in Crisis" (1997) Chapter 7, “The Many Faces of Indoctrination."
The largest project in the history of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors of Women’s Institutes—renamed the Leadership Conference of Women Religious—has been a twenty-five-year survey project directed by Sister Marie Augusta Neal [SNDdeN], a sociologist. The second stage of that project, a 1967 survey of almost every active sister in the United States, proved to be a major tool for shaping renewal in United States convents and developing the revolutionary new concepts of religious life embraced by many modern Religious. Consequently, the change-oriented leaders lauded the survey as a renewal project that exceeded their wildest expectations, while the survey’s detractors have called it a biased instrument with political motives that accomplished the most comprehensive indoctrination of American nuns ever.
One sister who completed the survey observed that if sisters weren’t already dissatisfied with religious life before the survey, there were plenty of suggestions in the survey to promote dissatisfaction, including questioning the value of the vows, the authority of superiors, some doctrinal teachings of the Church, and the very significance of religious life. Sisters have told the author that they remember completing the survey and being confused by the statements and questions, many of which really had no one answer. One sister recalled skipping over questions that she felt would indicate disloyalty to the Church. Although some sisters told the author they threw the questionnaire away after they saw its content, most sisters [nearly 140,000] dutifully completed the survey booklet in obedience to their superiors.
Sociologist Sister Patricia Wittburg [SC] has observed, “For many, simply completing the survey was a consciousness-raising experience. By asking whether a sister had read a particular modern theologian’s writings, for example, or whether she had attended ‘meetings of people other than her fellow community members,’ the survey legitimated such activities for many respondents who would not otherwise have thought of doing so on their own.” [The Rise and Fall of Catholic Religious Orders, p. 215]
In analyzing the effect of the Sisters Survey on renewal of American sisters, former Leadership Conference executive directors Sisters Mary Daniel Turner[ SNDdeN] and Lora Ann Quinonez [CDP] have observed that the survey “proved catalytic far beyond what its creators dreamed.” And they proudly reported that the results of the survey were used as a basis for proposals for renewal and to help sisters understand what was involved “in living into a new image, in fact a new paradigm, of religious life.” [The Transformation of American Catholic Sisters pp. 43, 44, 49]
Sister (Thomas Aquinas) Elizabeth Carroll [RSM] (a member of the Sisters’ Survey Committee and [LCWR] conference president in 1971) wrote later that the Sisters’ Survey, along with Vatican II “ ... served to unleash new concepts of what religious life could and should be, and contributed immensely to the creativity and ferment of special chapters all over the country.” [Midwives of the Future, p. 64]
What these commentators did not say was that the Sisters’ Survey was more than a questionnaire. It was an educational tool used to introduce into every American convent a concept of renewal that had been conceived by an elite group of sisters—a concept of renewal that differed vastly from the guidelines for renewal set forth in the Vatican II documents.
***********************************************************************************
A sampling of some of the questions from the Sister’s Survey, and the national response percentages:
131. Liberalism is a good thing because it represents a spirit of reform. It is an optimistic outlook expecting meaningful advance. It may not always represent justice, light, and wisdom, but it always tries to do so.
Disagree strongly-11.4 Disagree somewhat-18.8 Neither-25.5 Agree somewhat-29.8 Agree strongly-12
91. Every religious community in the spirit of the council must adjust to the changed conditions of the times. This means that no community can continue in the traditional form and be working with the mind of the church.
Yes—57.8 No—24.7 Undecided—9.1
155. Any organization becomes a deadening weight in time and needs to be revitalized.
Disagree strongly-3.3 Disagree somewhat-8.5 Neither-8.5 Agree somewhat-39.9 Agree strongly-48.2
644. All authentic law is by its very nature flexible and can be changed by the community in which it is operative.
Yes—54.5 No—16.4 Undecided—13.3
143. Every great step in world history has been accomplished through the inspiration of reformers and creative men.
Disagree strongly-6.5 Disagree somewhat-11.2 Neither-12.1 Agree somewhat-31 Undecided-35
364. Does your rule require too many prayers in common?
Yes—11.3 No—84.8
The largest project in the history of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors of Women’s Institutes—renamed the Leadership Conference of Women Religious—has been a twenty-five-year survey project directed by Sister Marie Augusta Neal [SNDdeN], a sociologist. The second stage of that project, a 1967 survey of almost every active sister in the United States, proved to be a major tool for shaping renewal in United States convents and developing the revolutionary new concepts of religious life embraced by many modern Religious. Consequently, the change-oriented leaders lauded the survey as a renewal project that exceeded their wildest expectations, while the survey’s detractors have called it a biased instrument with political motives that accomplished the most comprehensive indoctrination of American nuns ever.
One sister who completed the survey observed that if sisters weren’t already dissatisfied with religious life before the survey, there were plenty of suggestions in the survey to promote dissatisfaction, including questioning the value of the vows, the authority of superiors, some doctrinal teachings of the Church, and the very significance of religious life. Sisters have told the author that they remember completing the survey and being confused by the statements and questions, many of which really had no one answer. One sister recalled skipping over questions that she felt would indicate disloyalty to the Church. Although some sisters told the author they threw the questionnaire away after they saw its content, most sisters [nearly 140,000] dutifully completed the survey booklet in obedience to their superiors.
Sociologist Sister Patricia Wittburg [SC] has observed, “For many, simply completing the survey was a consciousness-raising experience. By asking whether a sister had read a particular modern theologian’s writings, for example, or whether she had attended ‘meetings of people other than her fellow community members,’ the survey legitimated such activities for many respondents who would not otherwise have thought of doing so on their own.” [The Rise and Fall of Catholic Religious Orders, p. 215]
In analyzing the effect of the Sisters Survey on renewal of American sisters, former Leadership Conference executive directors Sisters Mary Daniel Turner[ SNDdeN] and Lora Ann Quinonez [CDP] have observed that the survey “proved catalytic far beyond what its creators dreamed.” And they proudly reported that the results of the survey were used as a basis for proposals for renewal and to help sisters understand what was involved “in living into a new image, in fact a new paradigm, of religious life.” [The Transformation of American Catholic Sisters pp. 43, 44, 49]
Sister (Thomas Aquinas) Elizabeth Carroll [RSM] (a member of the Sisters’ Survey Committee and [LCWR] conference president in 1971) wrote later that the Sisters’ Survey, along with Vatican II “ ... served to unleash new concepts of what religious life could and should be, and contributed immensely to the creativity and ferment of special chapters all over the country.” [Midwives of the Future, p. 64]
What these commentators did not say was that the Sisters’ Survey was more than a questionnaire. It was an educational tool used to introduce into every American convent a concept of renewal that had been conceived by an elite group of sisters—a concept of renewal that differed vastly from the guidelines for renewal set forth in the Vatican II documents.
***********************************************************************************
A sampling of some of the questions from the Sister’s Survey, and the national response percentages:
131. Liberalism is a good thing because it represents a spirit of reform. It is an optimistic outlook expecting meaningful advance. It may not always represent justice, light, and wisdom, but it always tries to do so.
Disagree strongly-11.4 Disagree somewhat-18.8 Neither-25.5 Agree somewhat-29.8 Agree strongly-12
91. Every religious community in the spirit of the council must adjust to the changed conditions of the times. This means that no community can continue in the traditional form and be working with the mind of the church.
Yes—57.8 No—24.7 Undecided—9.1
155. Any organization becomes a deadening weight in time and needs to be revitalized.
Disagree strongly-3.3 Disagree somewhat-8.5 Neither-8.5 Agree somewhat-39.9 Agree strongly-48.2
644. All authentic law is by its very nature flexible and can be changed by the community in which it is operative.
Yes—54.5 No—16.4 Undecided—13.3
143. Every great step in world history has been accomplished through the inspiration of reformers and creative men.
Disagree strongly-6.5 Disagree somewhat-11.2 Neither-12.1 Agree somewhat-31 Undecided-35
364. Does your rule require too many prayers in common?
Yes—11.3 No—84.8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
