cistercian TOPICS
|
|||
Reflections on the El Escorial General Chapter When trying to
evaluate a General Chapter, one is always tempted to compare it
to another Chapter. Since I never attended a Chapter of abbesses
before, I cannot compare this one with another Chapter of abbesses.
That would be difficult anyway, since this Chapter was very different
from the preceding ones because it had to deal mostly with Constitutions.
Then, for that reason, it is natural to compare it with the Holyoke
Chapter. And I think it is the general opinion of those who attended
both that the El Escorial Chapter was more difficult that the
Holyoke one. The positions of the Capitulants were more diversified
to start with and the consensus was more difficult to reach, especially
on very critical questions like that of the enclosure and that
of the unity of the Order or the relationship with the male branch. But one must
remember that the abbesses, at this Chapter, found themselves
in a situation quite different from the one in which the abbots
found themselves last year. The juridical situation was much more
complex. In the male branch, we had been working on the Constitutions
since 1967, and several important points of the Constitutions
had been modified during the intervening Chapters. And in fact
the work of Holyoke consisted essentially
in compiling and giving a systematic form to the legislation that
had been elaborated over the years. A few important questions
had to be studied, but not many. Although the
nuns had been working with the monks for years in the elaboration
of the Constitutions (the monks profiting greatly from their participation)
the abbesses were confronted at the beginning of this Chapter
with a large series of important and difficult questions that
were not yet resolved. Most of these questions could not even
be formulated clearly because they were closely related to a difficult
and evolving situation: the relationship between the two branches.
That situation was still complicated by the discrepancies between
the desires of the nuns and the orientation of the Sacred Congregation
for Religious, as well as by the real difficulty to find a way
of being one Order while having two different General Chapters. When Cardinal
Antoniutti told the nuns to have their own General Chapter and
seemed to push them towards a complete separation from the male
branch, the general feeling in the Order was that it was better
not to try to clarify too soon the juridical situation and to
let life evolve, according to the very sound principle that legislation
should follow life rather than conditioning its growth. That attitude
was wise and has permitted a real and good evolution. But my personal
conviction is that we reached already a few years ago a point
where that attitude of "waiting" began to
be counterproductive. I think that the questions at issue at this
Chapter, and the possible options in each case, could easily have
been formulated more clearly before the Chapter. A lot of time
would have been spared and we could have gone further in the elaboration
of a new legislation. Even with a great
diversity of opinions and a real difficulty experienced in reaching
a consensus on some questions, the general atmosphere of the Chapter
was very good. There were naturally moments of tension, but even
then there was a good sense of humor in the assembly. Something
very healthy. Liturgy was good;
and I would say that for such a diversified group, it was very
good. The Eucharist of the whole group together seems to me essential,
even if each linguistic group has to make some sacrifices,
The Eucharistic prayer in Latin seems a good solution. Personally
I prefer to have a bit of every language in each celebration;
others would prefer to have each celebration in one language.
Other desiderata can be expressed and improvements are possible;
but I really enjoyed the daily Eucharist (and also the Divine
Office, when I was able to attend). At Holyoke two
questions monopolized the attention and the energy of the Chapter
right from the beginning: the liturgy of the hours, especially
the individual obligation to take part in it, and Collegiality.
At the Escorial, an identical phenomenon happened: two questions
also galvanized the assembly: the enclosure, and the unity of
the Order with the related question of Collegiality. Enclosure The question
of the enclosure was one on which the Chapter apparently lost
its time. I say apparently, because the agony through which we
went was useful. It was a good exercise at authentic dialogue
and a very fine example of how a consensus can be built on the
basis of what is hold in common, although opinions differ on many
secondary points. The issues are
quite complex. That solitude is a very important aspect of monastic
life, everyone agrees in principle, the nuns more than the monks
for sure. That a material separation from the world is necessary
to ensure that solitude, while being simply a means and not an
end, is also admitted by everyone. Another generally admitted
position is that enclosure is one of the monastic observances
and there is no objective reason to treat it differently from
any other. But the fact
is that the enclosure of the nuns has been treated (by the male
legislators!) very differently throughout the centuries and that
Canon Law - including the New Code -gives it a particular attention,
making a special responsibility of the local bishop to watch over
it. Furthermore,
ecclesiastical legislation has made the distinction between papal
enclosure which seems to be surrounded by a special halo of sanctity
and constitutional enclosure, which sounds to
many as a kind of second class type of enclosure. It seems from
the Code that if you want to be considered a strictly contemplative
nun with solemn vow, you must observe the papal enclosure, that
is you must follow the regulations outlined in Venite Seorsum
or in the document that is supposed to replace it (with additional
doubts about whether or not, or at least when such a document
will effectively come out, and what will be its orientation). Some abbesses
insisted on keeping the papal enclosure, and therefore Venite
Seorsum; but it does not seem that there are several
monasteries in the Order, if any, that follow exactly the norms
of Venite Seorsum... And I would be surprised if
any community would like to do so. All the abbesses
wanted the control over the enclosure to be exercised within the
Order. In other words they did not want the bishop to have anything
to do about it. So far, unanimity. But
then, who will fulfill the role that was -- at least theoretically
-- fulfilled by the bishop. Most wanted the abbess to do it. They
wanted the abbess to have the same authority over the enclosure
as the abbot has in his own community. And so,
many would have been pleased with Cst. 31 of the Holyoke text.
But after a second thought there was a certain number of abbesses
who were not too sure whether they wanted the nuns to have exactly
the same enclosure as the monks, because they felt that the monks
go out too easily; and they would not like their nuns to do the
same. Consequently
some desired that the cases in which the abbess can allow the
nuns to go out of the enclosure or people to come in be spelled
out and that clear norms be elaborated. Others, on the contrary
did not want either detailed norms or a list of specific cases.
The final result was a compromise text that gives some general
directives an enumerate a number of cases
(rather obvious) without trying to give a complete list. The responsibility
of each sister and of the community as a whole in making a
discernment in that matter is also stressed. Some felt that
the mention of the Father Immediate was important. They agreed
that enclosure was just one observance and that, theoretically,
it should not have a special treatment. But they felt that since
it was question of bringing into the realm of the Order a responsibility
that the Code explicitly gives to the bishop, it might be wise
to stress the fact that the practice of enclosure is revised at
the Regular Visitation and that the Father Immediate exercises
some "vigilance" over it (as over any other monastic
observance). The word "vigilance" was the object of
a good deal of discussion. My feeling was that the problem was
largely semantic, the word having much stronger connotation for
some than for others, even within the same linguistic group. On that question
of the solicitude of the Father Immediate concerning the enclosure,
as on many other questions, it was clear that the concrete relationship
between the abbess and her present or past Father Immediate had
a great influence on the position adopted. The Unity of the Order The most difficult
question was that of the unity of the Order. It was difficult
for the very simple reason that there were quite different conceptions
of what that unity should be. I don't think I can express very
clearly the various positions, but I will try. First of all
it is obvious that everyone wants to maintain and to nurture the
"communion" of hearts and spirits that exists between
the monks and the nuns, between the monasteries of monks and the
monasteries of nuns, and also between the two "branches". Secondly, most
(but not all) consider that it is important and necessary to express
that communion in some form of juridical structure. They think
that since we have two branches with each one its own General
Chapter and its own Constitutions, we will become completely separated
(or at least will be considered as such by the Holy See) unless
there is an organic unity between the two branches built into
our respective Constitutions. Of course there
are a few who think that an authentic and active communion expressed
in various forms of cooperation and mutual influence could exist
and be maintained even if we were two juridically different Order,
developing each one its own personality. I have personally expressed
that point of view a few times in past years. But the idea has
never been popular and it is clear that the vast majority of the
nuns (and probably also of the monks) don't want to go in that
direction. So, I have joined the ranks of those who try to find
a satisfactory juridical structure for a single Order composed
of two autonomous branches. Here appears
the first major difference. For some, we will not have one Order
unless there is one common supreme authority. The reasoning is
that if we have two autonomous General Chapters, each one receiving
independently its authority from the Holy See, through the approbation
of their respective Constitutions, we are in fact already two
Orders. Even having the same Abbot General does not resolve the
question, since our Abbot General is not an authority above the
Chapter. So, a juridical solution must be found. The first one
that comes to the mind is obviously to have one General Chapter
composed of all the abbots and all the abbesses, as the supreme
authority of the Order. That raises all kinds of practical problems
that we are not (or the Church is not) ready to solve. The whole
question of "jurisdiction" does not make the problem
more easy to solve. But others think
that such an approach is too legalistic and tends towards a subtle
(or even not so subtle) form of centralization. They say that
there are other ways of establishing an organic unity between
the two branches, than having a common supreme authority. The
various forms of interrelation that already exist at other levels
are enough, they say. Apart from the
collaboration existing under different forms at the level of Regional
Conferences, one must mention the Abbot General and the Father
Immediate. The idea of an
Abbess General at the head of the feminine branch of the Order
seems very unpopular among the abbesses and probably among the
majority of the nuns. I must confess that I do not understand
too much the reasons, even when they are explained to me, -- Well,
this must be one of those areas where men cannot understand what
is obvious to women. Very humbling, isn't it? -- I keep wondering,
though, how long, at least in some countries that I know better,
the young women who come to our convents will continue to find
normal that the General Chapter where their abbesses meet to treat
the pastoral and juridical problems of the communities of nuns
is always presided by a man. The traditional
way in which the monasteries of nuns have been incorporated into
the Order has been through the particular relationship to a monastery
of monks of which the abbot becomes the Father Immediate of the
nuns. With the exception of some federations like the one of Tart
and Las Huelgas, which may have a lot to teach us, the monasteries
of nuns did not have in the past the type of filiation that is
so essential to the male branch, When a monastery of nuns becomes
autonomous all the juridical relationship with the founding monasteries
are ended, although the bonds of communion may continue. Some think that
this was due to a cultural situation where nuns did not have any
role in the administration of the Order. They were totally under
the jurisdiction of a General Chapter composed entirely of men.
Now that such a situation of total dependence is considered unacceptable
and that the nuns have their own autonomous General Chapter, some
think that a normal evolution would be to have within the feminine
branch of the Order the same system of filiation (between founding
house and foundation) as within the male branch. Those who are
of that opinion generally concede that there should be a period
of transition and that the first step in that direction would
be a situation where the responsibilities presently assumed by
the Father Immediate would be divided among him and the abbess
of the founding house. To that, many
will respond that there is something wrong in the nuns trying
to copy everything the monks have or do, and that we should not
aim at having identical parallel structures. We have in the feminine
branch a different tradition concerning the filiation and it has
worked well so far, they say. Why not keep it? This seems to be
presently the position of the majority of the abbesses, if we
judge from the votes of the Chapter. The votes concerning
the various responsibilities of the Father Immediate seemed to many not to be entirely consistent. The reason was probably
not that the abbesses were being inconsistent, but that there
was there a great number of entangled questions that were not
yet formulated clearly enough and that will need to be studied
more in depth before the next General Chapter. Personally I
was surprised to hear some abbesses in some of the commissions
saying that they thought the Father Immediate of the monks had
more power over his daughter-houses than the Father Immediate
oŁ the Nuns. Which is certainly not the case.
At the same time I was still more surprised when the abbesses
voted to give to the Father Immediate rather than to the Abbot
General the very important responsibility to accept the resignation
of an abbess (while her election had to be confirmed by the Abbot
General). Collegiality Collegiality
is really only one of the aspects of the question of the unity
of the Order. I treat it here under a different heading because
it was a bone of contention at the Chapter. And although, at some
point, it seemed to be a discussion between men, the question
was important to large groups of abbesses. One of the challenges
of the Holyoke Chapter had been to find a satisfactory systematic
juridical expression of the various structures of the Order, both
ancient and new. The abbots had seen in the Charter of Charity
that as soon as Citeaux had made a few foundations, the abbots
of the various monasteries had assumed a collective responsibility
for the whole Order and had exercised it every year at the General
Chapter. In many cases they had exercised it in other ways, for
example delegating their authority to a group of "definitors"
to solve problems that the Chapter did not have the time to solve. It seemed to
some that the juridical concept of collegiality could be
used to express that reality. In that line of thought it is considered
that the supreme authority of the Order resides in the College
of all the superiors of the Order. Such supreme authority and
collegial pastoral solicitude are exercised when the abbots meet
for the General Chapter. It is also the same collegial solicitude,
and in some cases authority, that are exercised, under the control
of the General Chapter, in the traditional forms like the system
of filiation, the visitation, or in recent forms like the Regional
Conference (which are given by the General Chapter at least the
very important function of preparing the next General Chapter),
the Central Commission, etc. Before Holyoke, and at Holyoke the fear was expressed that this might
be a Trojan horse, a subtle way of giving special powers to presidents
of regions or regional conferences, etc. But little dialogue was
needed at Holyoke to convince everyone that nobody in the Order
had such plans, and a formulation (Cst. 72) was finally reached
at Holyoke, early in the Chapter, that did not leave any place
to such fears, since it expressed very clearly that every exercise
of that collegial responsibility outside the General Chapter was
necessarily subject to the directives and control of the General
Chapter. That text was voted with a very great majority early
during the General Chapter; and the concept of collegiality was
operative in the elaboration of many other numbers of the Constitutions. It was explained
at Holyoke that if Collegiality was a Trojan horse, that horse
was full of nuns! The idea was that such a juridical concept could
be used to give a juridical expression to a situation without
parallel in the Church. I mentioned above that many in the Order
think that we cannot remain one Order (or, to put it in a different
way: the Holy See will soon force us to become practically two
separate Orders) unless we have, in one way or another a common
supreme authority. Then we can say that the Cistercian Order is
one because the pastoral solicitude for and the supreme authority
on the whole Order resides in the College of all the superiors
of abbots and abbesses. Once that principle
is admitted we can find various practical ways of expressing that
one collective authority either through a mixed Chapter or through
parallel Chapters (one way would be to have a mixed General Chapter
meeting once to approve the Constitutions of both branches, and
convening again perhaps every twelve years, and, in the meantime,
delegating its power to the Chapter of abbots for things concerning
the monks and to the Chapter of abbesses for things concerning
the nuns. Cst. 72 of Holyoke was carefully written in such a way
that it remained open to such an evolution while not saying anything
that was unacceptable to those who did not care about the principle
of collegiality. And therefore it was voted easily. After the Holyoke
Chapter the various regions worked in different directions and
with different preoccupations. Some regions, for which the concept
of collegiality was important, worked on the basis of what Holyoke
had voted and tried to elaborate the nuns' legislation in that
line. Other regions while being happy with Cst. 72 of Holyoke,
simply forgot about the whole idea of collegiality (it is interesting
to see, for example, that a computerized concordance in French
of all the important words of the Holyoke text does not have the
word college, or collegially, or collegial, while an English similar
concordance lists seven references under the word "collegiality"...). All this explains
that when the question of collegiality came up at the Chapter
of abbesses a group of abbesses took for granted what others had
not even thought about. It obviously made for a difficult dialogue.
The fact that, when information was given about the Holyoke text,
differences of opinion appeared among the abbots present did not
make the whole question less complex, and could have given to
some abbesses the impression that this was simply a discussion
among men. Which it was certainly not, since many abbesses of
various regions were extremely interested. In the end the
abbesses voted to keep Cst. 72 exactly as in the Holyoke text
and a new Cst. 73 that goes a bit further and approves the possibility
of all the abbesses and abbots exercising the collegial responsibility
on the whole Order either in a mixed Chapter (at least, at any
rate, for the election of the Abbot General) or in parallel Chapters. There was a good
deal of difficult dialogue on that question, and it led to a significant
consensus. But it left everyone with the awareness that several
issues are not yet clearly formulated and that we will all have
to do our homework before the Summit Meeting of 1987. The Future It will obviously
be necessary to treat again of Constitutions at the next General
Chapter, that is at the Summit Meeting of 1987. But I think
it would be a pity if a large part of the Chapter were dedicated
to that. It can be easily avoided if we do our homework between
now and then and if the Central Commission and the Commission
of Preparation, at their next meeting, set up an efficient system
for the preparation of the Chapter. Most of the Meeting could
still be dedicated to the important question of formation. I hope to be
able to make, in separate papers, some concrete proposals concerning
the preparation of the next Summit Meeting and how the question
of formation could be treated by such an assembly. Conyers
Armand Veilleux |
|
||