The following presentation on the Xaverian Ecclesiality invites us to reflect on the way we relate to ecclesiastical leadership. - 0 - What is the place of consecrated men in the Church? It would be easy to think that the answer to this question is obvious, if not long- resolved in theology. The truth, however, is that there was a lot of theological contention before the Second Vatican Council regarding the place of consecrated women and men in the Church. Because of its acknowledged unique origin in the history of the church – that is, a Life Form that originated separately from its clerical and hierarchical structure – theologians debated whether or not Religious Life was actually part of the ecclesial reality. Among non-theologians, however, the question regarding the place of consecrated men in the church was something more different. For the average Catholic before the Second Vatican Council – and even for average Catholics in non-Western countries today – consecrated men are part of a clergy-dominated church. In the mind of many, vowed religious are part of a special group – chosen by God by virtue of the vow of chastity. And just like ordained priests, we were seen as being “set apart” from the laity, specially “chosen” – if not favored – by God. In the understanding and imagination of many, our location within the church’s power structure was somewhere between the ordained and the laity. And because of this, we are and were expected to be different, to look different, to behave differently from the average lay Catholic. It was the Second Vatican Council that set into motion a serious reconsideration about the identity and location of vowed religious in the Church. In harmony with its renewed concept that all the baptized constitute the “People of God” – each called by God as priest, prophet, 1
and servant-king – the Second Vatican Council clarified our place within the ecclesial reality by stating that Religious Life “is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. Rather, the faithful of Christ (who live this Life Form) are called by God from both the clerical and lay states of life.” (LG, 43b) For us religious brothers, this would imply that we are foundationally laypersons, not clerics or even quasi-clerics. However, those called to our life are summoned to discover, accept, and develop a particular gift, a particular charism which marks this life form – that is, the call to vow for celibacy – for the sake of the over-all mission of the Church. Another crucial realization that developed as a result of the Second Vatican Council is that Religious Life is a reality within the Church, a Life Form that is a gift of God to the world. Thus, Religious Life is an ecclesial reality, not simply because of the obvious presence of consecrated women and men in the Church, but because it is an essential element of the Church. However, Religious Life co-exists with another ecclesial reality, the Clerical Hierarchy. Both of these ecclesial realities are constituted by the People of God. Both, in the mind of the Council, are called to become “a visible Sacrament” of the love and mercy of God to all women and men. Both realities did not take their final form and shape immediately – with much difficulty, they evolved through two millennia into what they look like today. But although Religious Life and the Clerical Hierarchy developed side-by-side, their growth was marked by conflicts from the onset. On one hand, the Clerical Leadership understands that it “has receive from Christ the duty of discerning gifts and competencies, of coordinating multiple energies, and … of caring for religious charisms. (Thus), by fostering religious life and protecting it in conformity with its own 2
definite characteristics, bishops fulfill a real pastoral duty.” (MR, 9) On the other hands, Religious Life originates from groups born out of the prophetic insights of founders to lead lives that actively resist ambition, entitlement, and indulgence – at times as a needed counter-witness to the privileged life led by members of the Clerical Leadership. Because of this, one can understand why there had always been the tendency for Clerical Leadership and Religious Life to be in conflict with each other. At the root of the problem is that the very origin of the Consecrated Life was outside the realms of the Clerical Leadership. In an address given in January 1986, Pope John Paul II synthesized its beginnings in the following manner: Religious Life began in specifically lay form. It sprang from the desire of some faithful Christians to harvest the abundant fruits of their baptismal grace and to free themselves…. from the obstacles which might have distanced them from fervent charity and the perfection of divine worship. 1 The earliest religious in the Church clearly distinguished themselves from those who occupied clerical offices. They sought a way of following Christ that was deeply attuned to the calls of the Gospel, but away from an ecclesiastical leadership that had increasingly become privileged and entitled during the era of Emperor Constantine. However, even if they chose to distance themselves from these privileges and entitlements, the early religious did not see themselves as an elite body who enjoyed more closeness to God than other members of the faithful. Like other believers, they were strongly committed to a life which entailed the proclamation of the Word ( kerygma ), public worship 1 John Paul II, “Discourse to the plenary session of the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes,” 24 January 1986. 3
( leitourgia ), service to the neediest and to each other ( diakonia ), living in common ( koinonia ), and witnessing to Christ even at the risk of martyrdom ( martyria ). However, something had always set them apart. To the five Christian commitments already mentioned, the early religious added the practices of voluntary celibacy, dedicated asceticism and fervent contemplation. Because of this intensity of living the Christian life and a strong aversion toward privileges and entitlements, leaders and founder of the early religious communities were vehemently opposed to the acceptance of clerics into their numbers. Of Saint Pachomius, the father of cenobitism, the following was written in the fourth century: Our father Pachomius did not want any clerics in his monasteries, for fear of jealousy and vainglory. Very often, indeed, he would talk to them on this subject; “It is better not to seek after such a thing in our community, lest this should be an occasion for strife, envy, jealousy and even schisms to arise in a large number of monks, contrary to God’s will. A century later, Cassian, another pioneer of religious life, gave the following counsel to his followers: Brethren, do not let yourself be drawn to the diabolical temptation of seeking clerical office out of a desire to bring spiritual help to others. Of course, there were important pioneers of the Consecrated Life like Saints Basil and Augustine – who were both bishops – and Saint Benedict – a layman – who allowed the acceptance of clerics in monasteries, and even the ordination of its monks. However, even in these cleric-friendly monasteries, the founders emphasized that the primordial obligation for the ordained lies in fidelity to the monastic calling. Saint Benedict himself permitted the ordination of monks with the following stringent counsel: 4
Let the one who is ordained beware of self-exaltation or pride. Let him not presume to do anything except what is commanded him by the Abbot, knowing that he is so much the more subject to the discipline of the Rule. Nor should he by reason of his priesthood forget the obedience and the discipline required by the Rule, but make ever more and more progress towards God. But this reservation against ordaining monks gradually reversed during the Middle Ages. By the 9 th century, emperors and popes intensely promoted the ordination of monks so much so that by the start of the second millennium it became the normative practice. As the centuries passed, the tension between Consecrated Life and Clerical Leadership became more obvious, especially as a result of the increased tendency among bishops and priests to see themselves as divinely foreordained to be at the top of the church’s structure. Founders of religious congregations – even those who were seemingly subservient to the hierarchy – were for the most part aware of this tendency. It would be wrong for us to generalize that they, as Catholics of a different time, simply accepted the burden imposed on their shoulders. The truth is far more complex than that for Founders understood that the awesome responsibility given to them by the Spirit cannot be fulfilled without the leadership of the Church. Thus, one can say that in spite their difficulties with bishops and the compromises they have to make, Founders were ecclesial-minded. They were not naïve to the abuses of power and even fought these. In the end, however, they understood that they belong to the whole church and have to find some way of relating effectively for with the church’s hierarchy for the sake of founding and stabilizing the religious family they were called to found. 5
More recommend
