The following presentation on the Xaverian Life Form invites us to - PDF document

The following presentation on the Xaverian Life Form invites us to reflect on the call to live in common. - 0 - Until the Second Vatican Council, there was a certain notion of “community” in religious life that was understood and accepted in a virtually universal way. It was a notion in which all the members of a congregation lived in groups – mostly big ones – composed exclusively of vowed members from the same religious congregation. The life in common took place within a clearly marked area, and under the direction of an elected, if not appointed, superior. The members of such a community shared daily prayers and ate at a prescribed time and place. They did the same ministry in a place like a school or hospital attached to where they lived. For those working in a school, the horarium of the convent followed the rhythm of the school year. Convents tended to be self-contained – they had their own barbers, cobblers, tailors, bakers, and others. In such settings, religious could really feel that they are “set apart” from “the world.” Recreation periods for these religious were mandatory, but they recreated only with each other and without outsiders participating. Should these religious venture outside their convent, they did so in order to be engaged in apostolates, do outside chores, have community outings, or visit physicians. In the times they went out, religious traveled as a group if not at least in twos. However, they must have first secured the explicit permission of their superior, who in turn is expected to know the whereabouts of each of them. Such is the dominant image of “community” to those who lived at the time of the Second Vatican Council and immediately after it was closed. Now it should be said that there were many religious who lived a truly and integrated life while ascribing to and living this understanding 1

of “community”. Likewise, there were many religious who were unable to develop into self-determining individuals as a result of this way of living and understanding “community”. However it affected individual religious, forces within and outside Religious Life set into motion a re-consideration of this image of community by the middle of the 1960s. Perfectae Caritatis , the council’s decree on the adaptation and renewal of religious life, highlighted the impossibility of vowing chastity “for the sake of the Kingdom” unless candidates to the life – as well as vowed members – “possess the required psychological and emotional maturity.” (P.C. 12) This brought about a profound reckoning in religious congregations whether or not the sense of “community” that they lived and fostered has developed their members into psychologically and emotionally mature adults. In several congregations, including ours, leaderships felt that it would be best for several of their religious to live outside their convents in order for them to develop into self-determining men and women who could eventually face the day-to- day challenges of the world like most other people in their age group. Perfectae Caritatis also summoned consecrated people to see beyond their self-enclosed and self-contained convents. Early on, the decree called on religious congregations “to promote among their members an adequate knowledge of the social conditions of the times they live in and of the needs of the Church.” (P.C. 2b) To better equip religious to assess the “needs of our times”, Perfectae Caritatis further emphasized that “religious must be given suitable instruction, depending on their intellectual capacity and personal talent, in the currents and attitudes of sentiment and thought prevalent in social life today.” (P.C. 18) 2

This particular call of the council came at a time of socio-political changes in the mid-60s and the “needs of the times” they were highlighting. It was the time of the civil rights movement in the United States, of the full-blooming of the women’s movement, of the birth of nations in postcolonial Africa, of the spread of the peace movement and of the development of military juntas, of the surge in Europe and America of student and labor demonstrations against what they perceived to be their alienation from bourgeois social values promoted by the power elites. The upsetting of established political structures and religious views in the late 1960s was mirrored in religious congregations in both Europe and the United States. The realization that sexuality is not an evil human impulse and that working for the Reign of God does not require celibacy – along with personal honesty and need for human integrity – made so many consecrated women and men to leave religious life. Of those that remained, there were many who chose to move away from large communities and form communities with a smaller number of members. For reasons of study or ministry, some religious chose – if not were forced – to live in the company of other consecrated persons who belonged to another congregation. There were also those who chose to live alone for the sake of fulfilling a ministry which they sincerely felt was the “needs of the times” to which they had to respond. Many times, however, these reconfigurations were authorized by leaderships without first taking into account the congregation’s particular Life Form as it was envisioned by the founder through the Spirit’s inspiration. This was very unfortunate since the Second Vatican Council, from the onset, has emphasized that the adaptation and renewal of religious congregations must always refer to the Founding inspiration. Unfortunately, not a lot of congregations were equipped at that moment 3

in their history with either the knowledge or awareness of this aspect of their charism. Instead of paying close attention to this invitation of the Council, many congregations chose to allow their members to take on ministries outside their traditional work so long as they were taken in response to the “needs of the times.” Indeed, the concerns of the world became more complex from the 1970s onward: the growing economic gap between the poor and the rich, drugs and other forms of addiction, political and economic refugees, new forms of psychological and social marginalization, the aging of the population, and discovery of new diseases. In these and others, many religious have brought about responses of admirable and admired dedication. There were times, however, when we unwittingly found ourselves talking about ministry – or, more straightforwardly, our work – as if it were the end-all of our religious consecration. Perhaps there was a time when we found ourselves saying, “I am celibate so I can give myself totally to my work.” Perhaps also we had found ourselves saying, “We live together so that our work would become more effective.” In cases such as these, our response to “the needs of the times” became reduced to a mere exercise of a profession or occupation, stripped of any reference to the message of Christ. In unpleasant moments, we might have seen our living in common with other brothers as an obstacle for the fulfillment of the goals and aims we have set out for our work. There is no doubt that vowed celibacy, ministry, and community are interrelated. The question was how the correlation of the three should be properly established. It is true that “Community” can be understood in terms of a house where religious live together. Half a century after the Second Vatican Council, this is still how “Community” is imagined and understood by 4

many. But most of instinctively know that community has to be more than an area surrounded by walls and a roof where religious pray, eat, recreate, and sleep in. If the people residing in a community do not engage with each other in an authentic manner, if their conversations are limited to trivial matters, if there is no manifest care about each other’s spiritual, social, psychological, and intellectual well-being, then that “community” is nothing more than a place , a location that is not expected to be dynamic nor life-giving to its residents. -------------------------------------------------------------------- At this point, let us pause for a while and reflect on the following questions: 1) How has the understanding of “community” been imparted to me as a Xaverian brother? 2) Through the years, has there been a change or transformation in how I understood “community”? 3) Presently, how do I practice the call to the life in common? We will resume the presentation after you have done your personal reflection and sharing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5