Religious Life IN GENERAL
|
|||
THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE IN ITS HISTORICAL AND SPIRITUAL CONTEXT by ARMAND
VEILLEUX* Present
in the world as a sign of Christ's saving grace, the Church in
its history is closely bound to the history of mankind, although
it lives by its own inner force. Ecclesial development is always
conditioned by the sociological, spiritual and cultural factors
which influence human progress. In this context, the religious
life is but one of the Church's many self-expressions in the
course of its historical realization. Consequently, the history
of the religious life is inseparable from that of the Church as
a whole; and the latter bestows its own significance upon it. This
history is subject to the general laws of social life, where periods
of vigour alternate with those of decline. It is insufficient
however merely to note the succession of these periods; we must
also attempt to grasp the meaning of their flow. For
history is like a symphony, which delivers up its secret only
to those who discern its internal rhythm. There
is no question, in the following pages, of tracing even schematically
the history of the religious life. Taking this as known, we shall
recall only its broad lines and shall endeavour primarily to grasp
its vital rhythm. In this way we hope to gain some insights which
will enable us to understand better the present situation of religious
life and perceive more clearly how it should be inserted into
the Church and world of our day. I
- The Origin and Initial Developments o f the Religious Life (First to Eighth Centuries). It
is in the Gospel, and nowhere else, that the source of Christian
religious life is to be found. It does correspond, however, to
the profound tendencies of the human soul. Wherever civilization
has reached a sufficient degree of spiritualization similar forms
of life have appeared. Thus,
in the Greek culture of the sixth century B.C., when the mythological
worldview was giving way to the philosophical and theological
explanation of reality, Pythagoras of Samos established at Croton
a group of disciples dedicated to seeking God and to the contemplation
of his mysteries. This was a fraternal life of asceticism and
contemplation which already foreshadowed that of the Christian
ascetics.
[1]
Similarly
there appeared among the Jews the fellowships or haburoth
of the Pharisees, at the moment when the Jewish soul was turned,
by the spiritualizing influence of prophetic preaching and the
spur of foreign domination and exile, to a religious expectation
of the Messias.
[2]
The most obvious and closest kinship to the first Christian communities,
however, is to be found in the form of life of the Essene communities,
where the entire spiritual life was focused on fidelity to the
God of the Covenant.
[3]
This similarity is explained, not so much by some hypothetical direct
influence, but much more by the fact that Essenism and Christian
asceticism emerged from an identical Jewish-Christian spiritual
milieu. Every Christian vocation is a personal call from Christ. From the beginning
of his public life, the Lord called disciples to follow him and
instructed them concerning the very radical demands of a life
which aims at perfection. Nevertheless, it would be a mistaken
effort to try to wrest from this or that text of the New Testament
any kind of institution of the religious life by Christ
Himself. The religious life is not founded upon any particular
passage of the Gospel, but springs directly from the evangelical
message in its entirety. We
are accustomed to a theology of the religious life based upon
a rigid distinction between the precepts and the counsels. Granted
that this understanding of the evangelical "counsels"
is still current and that it has solid supports in Tradition;
nevertheless we are encouraged by recent Biblical exegesis to
re-evaluate this position. It is clear in fact that this idea
is born, not directly and immediately from the Gospel, but from
an effort to comprehend the life of Christian perfection.
[4]
First
of all, as Vatican II calls to mind (L.G., no. 40 and no. 42,
1 and 5), Christ has summoned every Christian without exception to the perfection
of charity; nor has he established any degrees within this ideal.
Even more, it is not theories on the Christian life that the Gospel
offers us, but rather concrete instances which manifest clearly
the radical demands of the sequela
Christi. The call of Christ always seeks man's unreserved
commitment and asks of him an unqualified obedience. Whenever
in some way or other the profound unity of the Christian is threatened
with dissolution or his heart is in danger of being divided, then
radical steps are required
of him (and not merely counselled): pluck out your eye; cut
off your hand; go, sell what you have. Little by little-not through
abstract reflexion, but by its own spiritual experience-the Church
has disengaged from the corpus of evangelical doctrine the basic
characteristics o€ a style of Christian living wherein these radical
dispositions are freely assumed as a permanent state of affairs.
In this sense, and in this sense only, is it possible to speak
of the evangelical "counsels". Christ
had required of his apostles such a radical life-style.
[5]
In the summaries of the Acts of the Apostles, this life of Koinonia which
the Apostles had lived with the Master is shown as the ideal which
the first Christians strove to realize within their new circumstances.
Here at Jerusalem on the morrow of Pentecost their life was one
of fraternal communion, sharing in the one table of the Lord,
and common ownership of goods. It is now recognized that these
descriptions witness to the community's ideal rather than to the
precise historical facts, which were certainly a bit more nuanced
than that. But the very fact that this radical manner of living
the Gospel was seen as the ideal of the whole community is significant.
It is with good reason then that each time the religious life
was initiated or reformed, reference was made to this precedent. Beginning
with the first Christian generation, we see virgins and ascetics
present in the life of the local Churches. Acts 21, 8-9, for example,
tells us about the four daughters of "Philip the evangelist",
virgins with the gift of prophecy who lived in their father's
house. The story of how Christianity spread with astonishing rapidity
is well known. Profiting by the Pax romana and
the means of communication furnished by the Empire, it was soon
established in every part of the Roman world and even overflowed
its borders into eastern Syria, the kingdom of Edessa or Osroene,
and Persia. And in all these places we come upon parthenoi of both sexes, who lived in the midst of the ecclesial
community and devoted themselves not only to celibacy but to a
rigorous asceticism also. They manifested an equal zeal for liturgical
worship and for visiting the poor, the sick, and the orphans.
In the numerous writings of the second and third century which
mention there, it becomes clear that these "virgins"
come from every social class and occupation. During these centuries
so marked by moral decadence they are the glory of the Churches,
which consider them as a group apart and favour them with special
deference in the Christian assemblies. Their resolve to live in
continence is recognized by the Church, and even before there
is any question of an explicit promise this resolve is ordinarily
treated as irrevocable. During
these first centuries the Judaeo-Christian Churches were characterized
by something o£ an ascetical and rigoristic
tendency.
[6]
This is manifest in a number of
documents, such as the Liber Graduum and
the apocryphal Gospels. We get the impression that these ecclesial
communities in their entirety were living what we today would
designate as a "monastic" life. In any event, it was
in the midst of these communities and from this Judaeo-Christian
soil that there sprang up the first groups of virgins and ascetics;
these were the Sons and Daughters of the Covenant, about whom
we are informed a little later by St Ephrem at Nisibis and Edessa,
and by St Aphrahat in Persia. Along this same line and by a process
of homogeneous development in these groups of ascetics, there
appears at the end of the third century that vast movement, so
multiform, so diverse and so confusing in the variety of its manifestations,
which has been designated by a name that has always been ambiguous:
monasticism. The
rise of monasticism had been prepared by the rapid growth of the
Church during the third century. While the Roman Empire, having
developed into a form of military dictatorship, was losing its
vitality and showing signs of considerable decadence in the realm
of art, morality, and literature as well as in the arena of politics,
the Church was in a state of unceasing growth in spite of the
trial of the persecutions. She had soon spread and become established
in the most scattered countries of the Empire: Egypt, Spain, Italy,
Gaul, and the regions of the Danube. By the time the Edict of
Milan confirmed her victory, monasticism was already present and
alive nearly everywhere. Far
from being a product exported from Egypt to all the other lands,
the monastic phenomenon appeared almost everywhere at once, springing
from the vitality of each Church. This accounts moreover for the
extreme diversity of its forms. In
Egypt, when Anthony withdrew to his first solitude around 271,
there was already in existence a community of virgins in his home
town, since he arranged for his sister to stay there. Athanasius
wrote a treatise De Virginitate addressed
to the virgins of Alexandria; and several documents, notably the
Lives of St Pachomius, witness to the communities of clerical
monks existing in Alexandria. Monks had preceded Anthony into
the desert proper, too, and legions were to follow him there.
When at Pispir he was gathering his disciples, other anchorites
were grouping about Ammon and the two Macariuses to form the great
semi-eremitical centres of Nitria, Scete, and the Cells, south
of Alexandria. And at the other end of Egypt, at the mouth of
the Nile, Pachomius was laying the foundations of his great Congregation
of cenobites. Shortly
afterwards, Basil organized in Cappadocia a similar form of cenobitism,
but within the very heart of metropolitan Caesarea. He himself,
under the guidance of Eustathius of Sebaste, had previously been.
a member of a rigoristic ascetic community
which was closely related, in its basic motivations, to the Sons
of the Covenant of Syria and Persia. After he had become bishop
and been formed by his travels through the important monastic
centres of Lower Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia, Basil
channelled the energies of this movement, organizing its ascetics
into fraternities which. were to become, throughout the East, the most prevalent form
of monasticism. These brotherhoods, dedicated to seeking God and
to contemplative prayer, dwelt in the midst of the local Church
while yet preserving a good measure of solitude. Within the great
Basilian Monastery, a sort of "City of Charity" founded
by Basil, the monks and nuns devoted themselves to the care of
the sick, the poor, and the pilgrims. They were also in some degree
the source of vitality for the liturgical celebrations of the
local community. Although
Basil, unlike Pachomius, was not the founder of a Congregation,
his form of monastic life was diffused even into Northern Syria,
the countries of the Caucasus, and western Asia Minor, as well
as in his own foundations in Pontus, Cappadocia, and Roman Armenia.
Through the influence of Gregory of Nyssa, the principal theologian
of Basilian monasticism, Basil's doctrine was communicated to
the entire monastic world, including that of the West. This diffusion
was assisted by the Pseudo-Macarius, Evagrius Ponticus, Cassian,
John Climacus, the Pseudo-Denis, and Maximus the Confessor, among
others. The
monastic movement also pervaded the whole of Palestine and both
eastern and western Syria. Besides the Latin monasticism established
at Jerusalem and Bethlehem, we find in Palestine from the beginning
of the fourth century a system of lauras erected solidly by Hilarion and Chariton. At the end
of the century Sabas, a disciple of Euthymius the Great, founded
there many lauras, coenobia, hospices, etc. The hermits of Palestine were
legion-and they allowed themselves every form of eccentricity.
In Upper Syria the plain of Dana was covered with monasteries,
and at the mouth of the Euphrates, in the environs of Edessa,
Julian Sabas and James of Edessa multiplied the number of lauras
and monasteries. Still further afield, at Niniveh and in Persia,
the number of monks was also very great. Armenia, Georgia, and
Constantinople too possessed their own monastic traditions. In
the West, where Eastern influences are soon apparent, the monastic
phenomenon manifests the same spontaneity and vitality. From the
second quarter of the fourth century the monastic life was propagated
in Gaul among all the social classes, but especially in the rural
areas. After a slight let up in the fifth century, during the
invasions of the Vandals, Huns, and Visigoths, it flourished anew
in the sixth century. The Merovingian saints often showed considerable
versatility in their careers, they were by turns hermits, cenobites,
preachers, bishops...Among the important
centres which developed we should call attention to Marmoutiers,
Léríns and Marseilles. Marmoutiers was surely one of the most
original of these foundations, for there all the forms of monasticism
were housed under a single roof, from the monk-cleric engaged
in pastoral work with his bishop to the lay monk occupied in copying
manuscripts. In
Italy, the ascetical inclinations inherent in any Christian life
were awakened in souls by St Athanasius during the period of his
exile; and St Jerome sharpened the edge of this ideal. About 340
Constantina, the daughter of Constantine the Great, had already
established a community of virgins at Rome near the Basilica of
St Agnes. Then in the days of Jerome the city's patrician ladies,
in their mansions on the Aventine,. were leading a life of prayer, seclusion, and penance that
was quite monastic. In 363 Bishop Eusebius of Vercelli organized
the clerics of his cathedral church into a monastic community.
Ambrose did the same at Milan. Sometime later, in the sixth century,
in an Italy exhausted from its struggle against the Barbarians
and at a time when Rome itself was witnessing a serious crisis
for the papacy, St Benedict laid the foundations of the monastic
tradition which was destined to dominate the whole of western
monasticism until our own times. In
Africa, Augustine founded a lay monastery close to his cathedral,
organized his clergy as a monastic community, and brought the
virgins together for a common life. Like the ascetical groups
which existed there from pre-Augustinian days, this monasticism
was to remain alive in Africa until Christian life was just about
wiped out in that region
by the Arab invasion. The same picture is presented by the far-off Celtic lands. Truly likeable,
these Irish monks-simultaneously in love with solitude yet eternal
pilgrims of God, sometimes taking refuge on a desert island, sometimes
traversing the world to evangelize the pagans! They were to be
joined in these distant reaches o£ the north by St Augustine and
his monks; but they were not to appreciate their romanizing intentions.
It was from these northern lands that the high-spirited and indefatigable
Columban set out at the end of the sixth century to plant Christianity
and monasticism across the whole breadth of northern and eastern
Gaul. A little later Willibrord did the same in Frisia, and Boniface
in Germany. This
rapid expansion of monasticism through the whole Christian world
is truly an extraordinary epic. A movement so general, so vigorous,
so spontaneous, springing up everywhere at once and spreading
like a spark in a trail of gunpowder, can find its explanation
only in a breath of the Spirit. Thus
throughout the first six or seven centuries of the Church's history,
both in the East and the West, we discover the Christian life
being lived in accord with its most radical demands, the evangelical
counsels, by people of every milieu and condition and from among
both sexes. Within the local Churches there were virgins and ascetics
who embraced the life of celibacy and asceticism without abandoning
the normal setting of their life in society. There were others
who dedicated themselves to the works of mercy; and some joined
together in communities, which continued however to live at the
centre of the local Church. Then there were those who took themselves
off to a solitary place, into the desert, either to establish
there ascetical brotherhoods or to live there in absolute solitude. Some bishops
encouraged their clerics to share with them this life of community
and asceticism. The "evangelical counsels" therefore
were being lived under such diverse forms that there is no difficulty
in claiming, from this point forward, that the Church possessed
all the forms of religious life with which we are familiar today. Nevertheless,
from the end of the third century, this ascetical movement had
developed especially in the specific direction of what was afterwards
labelled the "monastic life" properly so called. The
terminology though remained very uncertain, for the word "monk",
notwithstanding its etymological derivation, was used even at
the beginning of the fourth century to designate any of the forms
of life according to the evangelical counsels. This means that
the word monk had at that time a meaning which was as broad as
that .of the word "religious" in our own
day. The ambiguity is surely unfortunate, but it is a simple matter
of fact. In our day also, even if the word has taken on a more
definite meaning, closer to its etymological content, is it really
possible for anyone to pride himself on having an infallible criterion
for ascertaining which forms of the consecrated life can be considered
"monastic" and which cannot? The
extraordinary expansion of the strictly monastic movement was
indirectly to have some very significant repercussions on the
whole history of the religious life. Until this time the ascetics,
whatever their form of life, had been dependent upon their local
bishops, just as any other Christians and by the same title. The
bishops did not meddle with the inner life of the communities,
at least as long as the welfare of all the faithful was not at
stake. The growth of the monastic movement, however, obviously
necessitated a proportionate development of structures; and this
itself occasioned the ever-increasing intervention of hierarchial
authority aimed at specifying these structures and, when need
arose, at reforming abuses. In this way it came about that the
early legislation "for religious" was concerned almost
exclusively with monks strictly so called. As the legislation
grew but abstracted from other forms of consecrated life, these
remained unrecognized and were gradually thrust to the periphery.
This was true to such an extent, at least in the West, that the
Carolingian. reform would acknowledge
only one form of "religious" life in the Church, the
monastic life lived within an enclosure, in solitude. Even the
virgins, who had traditionally lived in the midst of the local
Churches, would be more and more compelled to cloister themselves. Let
us not anticipate the facts however. We would only observe that
a similar tendency was evident in the East. The Council of Chalcedon
(canon 3) had already passed legislation dealing with monks, intended
to put them explicitly under the jurisdiction of the local bishops
Shortly afterwards, the imperial theocrat Justinian also took
cognizance of the monks, in his Novellae
(5, 123, 133) : he allowed
only the cenobia, in which a complete communal life was observed
under a hegoumenos, who possessed moreover a nearly absolute authority.
Solitaries were merely tolerated, and they were to remain few
in number. Control over the monasteries and their observance was
entrusted to the officials of the patriarchate. II
-- From the Carolingian Reform to the Council of Trent. The
astonishing fact about the entire monastic movement described
above is that it took place at the very moment when Europe was
entering upon an age of darkness and barbarity. From the beginning
of the fifth century we witness a disturbing retreat of civilization,
evident in the moral decadence and in a frightful decline of culture.
Even in the Church we perceive a contamination of faith and morals
by pagan practices. While
the monks contributed greatly to the preservation of culture
and the maintenance of moral values, they also were eventually
affected. As the monasteries filled with barbarians who had only
recently been coated with a light veneer of Christianity, the
monastic fervour and way of life, like that of the clergy, grew
progressively worse. While
decline in the life of the clergy had been more rapid, their reform
also came about more quickly.
We recall how bishops such as Augustine at Hippo and Eusebius
at Vercelli had tried to have their clergy lead a real monastic
life. While this clearly could not be imposed universally, the
ideal of common life pure and simple was more accessible to the
majority of clerics. In the eighth century, St Chrodegang (+ 766)
became the advocate of this renewal of common life (vita canonica) among the clergy. The
idea was that of a simple common life within which each one would
preserve his own personal possessions; there was no question of
an integral practice of the evangelical counsels. Chrodegang drew
up for his "canons" a Rule that was heavily influenced
by that of St Benedict and which was to play a rather important
role in the Carolingian reform. As
Justinian had done in the East, so also Charlemagne undertook
the reform of the entire ecclesiastical polity within his kingdom---a
fact that went hand in glove with his political aims. He was particularly
attentive with regard to the canons and the monks. Attached to
the churches were clergy who followed either an explicitly monastic
life or else a simple common life. Charlemagne decreed that this
uncertain state of affairs should be terminated: either they were
to adopt the monastic life within cloister walls and according
to the Rule of St Benedict, or else they had to assume the common
life of canons under the Rule of St Chrodegang. This
decision was of great consequence for the future of the religious
life. First of all, the only form of religious life henceforth
admitted, i.e., the only recognized manner of practising the evangelical
counsels, was to be the monastic life
properly so called. The canons of that era (who should not be
confused with the canons regular of a later epoch) were not "religious"
in the technical sense
of the term; they corresponded rather to our communities of common
life without vows. Moreover, the monastic life itself was reduced
to a common denominator. Until then it had known a great variety
of forms; and while a few of the major Rules, especially those
of St Benedict and St Columban, had undoubtedly predominated in
practice, still there had been no rigidity in this set-up. The
Rules were put to use in a spirit of liberty, and monasticism
had not ceased to evolve and adapt itself to temporal and local
circumstances. The onset of the Carolingian reform, however, introduced
a measure of rigidity and brought to light a novel concept of
the "Rule". Hitherto a monastic Rule had been considered
rather as a spiritual
document whose profound inspiration was to be preserved. All the
great Rules were the common property of the monasteries, with
the result that a single community could simultaneously consider two
or three different Rules as the basis of its spiritual life. There
was no question of adopting
literally the material organization provided by a Rule
written for some previous century. But from now on the monastic
Rule, viz. that of S t Benedict, is no longer considered simply
as a spiritual document providing the fundamental inspiration
of the life, but as a
juridical code delineating the. monastic
life even in its details. With this development, the Western religious
tradition was tainted by a legalism that it has never succeeded
in ridding itself of completely.
[7]
Fortified
with the support of Charlemagne and his successor Louis the Pious,
Benedict of Aniane applied his energy to the furtherance of this
reform. A capitulare monasticum, intended to specify the interpretation
and application of St Benedict's Rule, was drawn up at the Synod
of Aix-laChapelle in 817; and a sort of model monastery was even
founded (Inden). In case of need, the imperial officials were
to keep an eye on the implementation of the reformatory decrees
within the monasteries. During the lifetime of the dynamic Benedict
of Aniane this reform knew some success, but after
his death it collapsed. It was demonstrated once and for
all that any reform of religious life grounded primarily on institutional
reforms is destined to meet with failure. This reform of monastic
life had the same fate as the "Carolingian Renaissance"
in its entirety. Indeed this first attempt to erect an edifice
of peace, prosperity, and civilization upon the ruins of the Roman
Empire was brought to nothing and Charlemagne's Empire broke up.
Before long new hordes of Barbarians burst upon Europe: the Vikings
coming from the north, the Saracens from the south, and from the
east the Hungarians. Another sombre epoch set in for the
West. In
the East, after the cenobitic life had been somewhat weakened
by the iconoclastic struggle, it experienced a great surge upward
at the end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth century. This
was due to the reform initiated by Theodore Studite in line with
the monastic ideal of Basil and Dorotheus of Gaza. Fortunately
for the West the breath of the spirit, which had been lacking
in the Carolingian reform, stirred up almost a century after the
Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle the important monastic reform of Cluny.
[8]
This reform was to be a return, within the juridical framework
established by Benedict of Aniane, to the basic exigencies of
the monastic vocation: silence, labour, stability, prayer. The
Cluniac monasteries were, and were to remain for a very long time,
centres of a life of intense prayer and union with God in the
midst of a world given more than ever to violence, dissoluteness,
and injustice. The extreme centralization of Cluny was intended
to liberate the individual houses from their subjection to the
feudal lords, for their times witnessed the ever growing power
of the feudal system, whose foundations had been laid by the political
organization of Charlemagne. Paradoxically this step was the cause
of the "Congregation" of Cluny becoming an important
cog in feudal society and finding itself much involved in the
political and social life of all Europe.
[9]
During
the eleventh century these feudal structures attained the apogee
of their developments and within the new Ottonian Empire
Church and State tended more and more to fuse. It was at this
moment that a vast movement began to manifest itself within the
Church, a movement of radical reform which was to establish Christianity
on new foundations. This reform first became apparent in the Quarrel
of Investitures and in the struggle against Simony and Nicolaism;
but it reached its apex during the pontificate of Gregory VII (1073-1085), so that it is quite properly
spoken of as the "Gregorian reform". With this there
commences for the Church in the West three magnificent centuries,
which find their pure expression in Gothic art. This epoch is
extraordinarily endowed with great men and with creative energy;
it abounds in saints and mystics. How calamitous that at
such a moment as this the great Byzantium fell under
the blows of the Crusaders! in
961 however (hence shortly after the Cluniac reform in
the West) the monk Athanasius, taking his inspiration from
the Studite reform, had laid the cornerstone of the monastery
of Lavra on Mount Athos, thus beginning a tradition which would
come down to our own day through a millenium marked by alternating
periods of grandeur and decline. Within
the Gregorian reform movement the need for a renewal of monastic
life quickly came to light.
[10]
This
necessity did not arise from a situation of laxity
in the monasteries; on the contrary, the Cluniac reform
had borne excellent fruit. Quite simply, in a changing world,
where the Church itself was assuming a new stance vis-a-vis secular
society, all the components o€ ecclesial life were being radically
questioned, and monastic life in the forefront. Confronted with
the large traditional monasteries, which held vast landed estates
and were deeply entangled in the machinery of economic, political,
and ecclesiastical life, a very strong tendency arose toward poverty,
Solitude; and the ideal of a life of brotherhood such as characterized
the primitive community of Jerusalem. St Romuald founded Camaldoli
in 1012; and about 1013 John Gualbert established Vallombrosa.
Then there were Stephen of Muret at Grandmont in 1124, Robert
of Arbrissel at Fontevrault in 1096, St Bruno at Chartreuse in
1084, and Robert of Molesme who founded Citeaux in 1098. The
Gregorian reform stands out as a significant turning point in
the history of religious life. Indeed, with the Carolingian reform
of the ninth century, there had come about a thorough levelling
of the religious life. Beginning with the Gregorian reform and
the numerous foundations it occasioned we witness, however, even
up to our own time, a sort of "reconquest". Gradually
the various forms of living the evangelical counsels
re ain their right of citizenship. And the first reconquest consists
specific ally in
the renewed recognition of the charismatic character of
monasticism, which thus recovers its spontaneity and creativity.
Breaking free of the canonical moulds, it
blossoms in every shape and variety: urban monasticism
and desert monasticism, cenobitic life and eremitism, varied
mixtures of solitude and community life. Parallel
with this initial reconquest of monastic pluralism, the clergy
dedicated to the pastoral ministry also recovered their right
to live the evangelical counsels in a public manner, recognized
by the Church. It is at this time that the canons regular put
in their appearance. The word canonicus had served in the
earliest centuries to designate the clergy listed in the registers
or canon of a Church; but about the end of the sixth century it
began to be reserved rather for clerics leading the common life.
We have already seen that this common life was either a true monastic
life or, especially since the time of St Chrodegang, a common
life without the renunciation of private property. From the time
of the Carolingian reform, the canons leading this simple common
life were clearly set off from the monks. In the tenth century
the term canonicus
reguIaris was already in use, though not yet with the
sense in which we take it. This distinction lay between the canonicus saecularis (who
lived independently in the world) and the canonicus reguIaris (who remained faithful
to the ancient ideal of community life as found in the Rule of
St Chrodegang). In the eleventh century many a reformer, St Peter
Damian in particular, would attempt to impose the common life
on all canons; nevertheless both types would continue to exist. At
the same time however a new movement arose among the clergy and
a new form of clerical life appeared. Assuming for themselves
the Rule attributed to St Augustine, several groups of canons
regular (in the strict sense) were founded. They led a life fully
according to the evangelical counsels, although they were not
monks. They observed not only celibacy and the common life, but
even the total renunciation of material goods. As early as 1039,
in the little church of the St Rufus district of Avignon, four
canons of the cathedral began what was to become the Order of
St Rufus which was destined to experience a considerable growth
(it would number 1,100 houses in 11.51). Among the many similar
foundations we should at least mention the canons of St Victor
(in 1113) and those of Prémontré (1120). Life
according to the evangelical counsels is therefore once again
possible not only for the various types of monks living apart
from the world but for the clergy in the service of the local
Churches as well. Will it also be practicable for the laity in
the world? The latter seem a bit forgotten in this religious context,
where religion tends to become the business of clerics and monks. The
case of the "virgins" is typical. In the early days
of the Church there had been numerous virgins who lived in the
midst of the ecclesial community which recognized and esteemed
them. When the monastic explosion occurred, however, these women
were absorbed by the movement. Wherever male monasticism developed,
the feminine form of monastic life was established on its fringe.
Nevertheless the local churches were not totally deprived of the
virgins who adorned them. Some of these continued to live in the world, a fact that
soon led to the distinction between virgines velatae (living the monastic life) and virgines
non velatae (who remained in the world).The latter,
however, became a source of anxious concern for the ecclesiastical
and imperial authorities; councils, popes, and bishops all sought
to gather these devout women into groups living in common. To
this end they prescribed for them the rule followed by the canons;
and designated. them "canonesses».
In the course of the tenth century, with the decline of the canonical
structure, they were separated into the same categories
as the canons: there were regular canonesses
and secular canonesses. The latter; simply groups of pious women
mostly of noble lineage, dropped entirely from view at the time
of the French Revolution; while the former became true religious
and as such have survived until the present day. Daring the Middle
Ages groups of nuns were also affiliated to each of the principal
monastic orders. In
practice, after the tenth or eleventh century a woman found it
quite impossible to embrace a celibate life for the sake of the
Kingdom unless; in one Fashion or other, she walled herself up
within a monastic enclosure. Several centuries would still have
to pass before the possibility of uncloistered women religious
would be accepted. During these centuries of unrefined morality
people found it difficult to imagine a woman preserving her virtue if she did not enjoy the protection
of either a consort or a convent; aut
maritus aut
murusl With
the start of the thirteenth century a new development occurred
which was to have considerable influence on the evolution of the
religious life. Nowhere else in the history of the religious life
can we discover such a combination of poetry, charm.
and mysticism, as we do in the origins
of the Friars Minor. During the previous century we find serious
reforms of monastic life and witness the establishment of sedate
communities of canons regular. But here we have the spectacle
of a youth from Assisi; moved by divine grace, roused by a word
of the Gospel; freely and gaily casting off all his' riches and
consecrating himself to Lady Poverty and to solicitude for the
poor. Yet for all that-and here lay the novelty of it-he never
dreamt of shutting himself up in a monastery! Besides, what cloister
would have been. able
to restrain this vagabond of God, what bounds could one think
of imposing on the liberty of God's children possessed in such
fullness? A few years later; in February 1209, another word of
the Gospel touched his heart:, "Go;
preach the message, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand!' "
Without complications, without the least thought of getting himself
made a cleric,
yet without any intention of "founding" something new,
Francis, the simple layman, began in all simplicity to preach-and
how sublimely! Very soon a dozen young men were following him
and sharing his unexampled life as a apostle. And the great reforming pope, innocent 111, offered
them encouragement. Within a year, in 1210, Clare, a charming
girl of Assisi, plunged into solitude, taking up residence in
the neighbourhood of the house where Francis and his companions
had established their brother- hood. In no time she had become
the founders of the Poor Ladies. Other men and women; moreover,
living in the world and pursuing their usual responsibilities,
were moved by the preaching and example of the Friars Minor to
gather together in order to renew and to live in depth their Christian
life. This was the formula of the Third Orders, which would play
such an important part in the slow struggle to declericalize the
Christian religion during the following centuries. It
had been Francis's intention that his disciples should be ordinary
laymen, living in the midst of the world and for the sake of Christians
who were in the world. By penance, prayer, and preaching they
would participate in the . life
of Christ, the poor man. Development on the institutional level,
however, brought with it the rapid transformation of his community
into a clerical Order. Nevertheless his foundation holds a place
of extreme importance in the patterns of change [la dynamique] of the religious
life. With it the practice of the evangelical counsels once again
appeared outside of monastic enclosures and canonries, on the
open roads, with the full liberty of God's children. Although
the Lateran Council of 1215, responding to the somewhat chaotic
proliferation of religious orders, forbade the authorization of
new congregations and decreed the adoption of an already approved
rule by would-be founders of religious societies; nevertheless,
by the will of innocent III himself, the Friars Minor were exempted
from this unfortunate law which once again froze the evolution
of religious life. At
the very time when the Poverello was beginning his life as God's
troubadour, a young Premonstratensian canon regular named Dominic,
in company with his bishop, undertook a career o€ preaching among
the Christians of Languedoc who were ravaged by the Albigensian
heresy. From this experience was to spring the foundation of
a group which sought to combine the witness of brotherhood and
of a poor and penitential life with a total consecration to teaching
and preaching on every latitude of the
globe. Dominic did not enjoy the last chance that Francis had
to get his rule of life
approved before the restrictive legislation of 1215; consequently
he was obliged to adopt an existing rule, and chose that of the
canons regular, attributed to St Augustine. Thus a new Order
was born; similar on many counts to that of Francis; it was a
successful blend of the apostolic life with the traditional austerity
and renunciation of monasticism; and organized according to the rules of life of the canons regular. The second half of the century saw the creation of other mendicant communities,
most noteworthy being the Carmelites and the Hermits of St Augustine. This foundation o£ the mendicant
Orders is important, since it implies recognition of the principle
of a consecrated life combining the integral practice of the evangelical
counsels with a lay or clerical life committed
. by vocation, to an active apostolate
within the world. So too the creation of the Third Orders has
its own significance in the history of the gradual advancement
of the laity within the Church. Nevertheless, the decision
of 1215 was to prove a considerable barrier in the subsequent
evolution of religious life; it would force the
new foundations raised up by the Spirit
to be cast in moulds, which restricted the full expansion
of their own particular charism. Yet
the twelfth century had also witnessed the founding of a few Orders
o f a rather special character, and these also, in
their own way, contributed to the recovery
of pluralism in the forms of religious life. There is no point
in lingering over the typically medieval example of the military
Orders of knighthood. The Orders of Hospitallers surely approach
more closely the ideal of
religious life. These include the Antonines, the Brethren of the
Holy Spirit, the Brethren of St Lazarus, the Croisiers, etc. On
the whole, they were similar or subsequently assimilated to the
canons regular; so, for example,
the Antonines, founded in 1095
and reorganized by Boniface VIII ill. 1297 as
a congregation of canons regular. Alongside these, another
rather unusual enterprise was that of the redemptive Orders, such
as the Trinitarians founded in 1198 or the Mercedarians in 1223.
Although they had to fit into a framework which little suited
them, these foundations already anticipated our religious communities
dedicated to specific corporal work, of mercy. If
this eruption of new Orders did not occur in the East; it is because
there monasticism remained more supple and pluralistic, unaffected
by the uniformity which the Carolingian reform had imposed on
religious life in the West. - In the East "monks" were
ready when needed to perform all the services. (preaching,
care of the sick, education) for which new institutes had been
established in the West. The
twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the West were truly golden
ages for both the traditional and the new orders. Vitality abounded
everywhere. The Monastic Orders multiplied their foundations and
persisted in their fervour; and the Mendicant Orders carried the
Word of God across Europe and even into the most distant mission
lands. This
great movement of expansion stimulated a serious theological effort
to reflect on and systematically explain the religious life. While
this was necessary and useful in itself, such systematization
nevertheless had its disadvantages. Hitherto commitment to the
religious life had included a promise, a "professio",
by which one pledged himself to a certain way of life. The commitment
to celibacy, Or the "vow of virginity", was often explicitly
mentioned. In the new Orders, and first of all among the Franciscans,
the formula of profession rendered explicit the three vows which
had become traditional: poverty, chastity and obedience. Simultaneously
emphasis was being given to the already accepted distinction between
the "simple vow" of chastity (i.e., an ordinary vow,
without official recognition by the Church) and the solemn vow
(vii., that recognized and consecrated
by the Church in a ritual action). This distinction was subsequently
extended to the two other vows. Since this solemn profession was
practised in all the monastic Orders, the opinion quickly gained
acceptance that religious consecration did not exist without
the three solemn vows (though some of these might be stated implicitly),
and that these three vows (called henceforth the three "essential
vows" of the religious state) were a condition sine qua non
of that "state". For the nuns, the situation became
even more restrictive after the thirteenth century, for the solemn
vows (constitutive of the religious state) were inseparably bound
up with the obligation of strict papal enclosure. Such
systematization and the rigid legal forms engendered by it need
not surprise us if we recall that this new flourishing of the
religious life was rooted in the Gregorian reform, a period for
the Church of institutionalization and centralization, marked
by a rather pronounced development of canon law. Onto the new
juridical conception of the vows was grafted a new theology of
the religious life, based upon the idea of the "three evangelical
counsels", which has prevailed to this day. It is beginning
however to give way to a more comprehensive view of the Gospel's
teaching about the perfect life. The
religious life was considered henceforth much more as a state
than as a life-a view that manifests a distinctly medieval
preoccupation. Only those were acknowledged as religious who met
the necessary requirements for belonging to such a "state";
and the possibility of living the evangelical counsels outside
of this fixed framework was not recognized. Life however, when
sufficiently vigorous, has a way of breaking through forms that
are too rigid and creating its own norms. There developed alongside
the established religious life a full-fledged movement which
heralded the forms of life of our numerous modern congregations.
It was primarily the Tertiaries of St Francis and St Dominic who
set this development in motion. In ever greater numbers they hastened
to adopt the common life, with juridical bonds that were more
or less rigorous. Sometimes they made vows o€ celibacy.
In 1289 Nicholas IV greatly furthered the organization of these
movements by his approval of the Rule for Tertiaries of the Franciscan
Order. These communities often observed the "three vows"
even though they were not solemnly recognized. Somewhat
later, especially in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the
societies of "gray nuns" or "black nuns" appeared,
and spread through northern France and Belgium. These were nursing
congregations whose members attended the sick even in their homes.
They took the three vows of religion, even publicly; but still
they were not considered "religious", since their vows
were not solemn and they did not observe the papal enclosure.
A fact, however, that preserved them from the injunctions of the
canonists ! With
the end of the thirteenth century a crisis declared itself, a
serious crisis of
civilization in the course of which Europe would be taken to pieces
and '''"Christendom' would collapse. As the crowning touch
of calamity in this autumn of the Middle
Ages, the Black Plague was added to the scourge o f war and by
itself accounted for the death of a third of the European population.
Shaken and convulsed by these misfortunes the Church, like the
State, sank into a new period of decline. III -- From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century At the commencement of the sixteenth century mystics and prophets arose
on every side proclaiming the need of reform. This cry rose to
such pitch that when the official reform was not forthcoming Luther
took matters into his own hands. However, even within the pale
of the Church and long before the official Tridentine reform,
fervent souls in many diverse situations not only perceived and
proclaimed the need for reform but set themselves
to the task. In the early years of the century, while the Protestant
reformation was brewing, some sparks of fervour had given a jolt
to the Church in one locale or another. It is a very significant
fact that almost everywhere devout Christians were forming into
groups in order to read Scripture together, discuss theology and
mysticism, and confront the problems of the Church. The most
famous o€ these associations was the Oratory of Divine Love, which came into existence during the
years 15710-1520 in a small church of the Trastevere district
of Rome and gave rise to a number of religious foundations properly
so called. At this time also an initial reform movement stirred
most of the ancient Orders, which had pretty well fallen from
their state of fervour. In most cases this reform followed an
identical pattern of development. These great structures no longer
possessed sufficient vitality to renew themselves. So God would
raise up charismatic men to reform a
single community, a particular house, as an initial cell around
which would be organized a number of other houses; eventually
this would lead to the formation of a congregation. A striking
example is the reform of the Camaldolese by Blessed Giustiniani.
Elsewhere, as with the sons of St Francis, the reform was more
lively and ended up in the creation of several branches
within the fold of a single Order. Even before the Council this wind of reform was accompanied by the foundation
of new communities, in particular by the creation o€ the Clerks Regular.
The mendicant Orders as well as the canons regular,
while they had launched out into the active apostolate, had nevertheless
maintained a style of life quite similar to that of monks. As
a result, the movements of reform affecting clerical life had
always more or less bypassed the secular clergy in the parishes.
The new communities of clerks regular gathered into fraternities
those priests consecrated for the ordinary ministry who desired
to live by the evangelical counsels, yet had no thought of separating
themselves from the parochial clergy and their life work. There
thus appeared successively the Theatines of St Cajetan of Tiene
and Giovanni Pietro Carafa, the Barnabites of St Antony Mary Zaccaria,
the Somaschi of Jerome Aemilian, and many more. Several of the
new congregations possessed a feminine branch alongside their
own. These communities of women had already realized the dream
of St Francis de Sales for his Visitandines, a dream he himself
was unable to bring true. This was a life that was not confined
within an enclosure but involved alongside the clergy in works
of charity, education, and apostolate. Nevertheless, it must be
mentioned that those communities which acquired any prominence
were quickly obliged to accept the life style of the older Orders,
beginning with papal enclosure. Such was the fate of the Ursulines
in France. The
most important foundation of this period was undoubtedly the Society
of Jesus. By the troops which it put at the service of the Pope
for tasks anywhere in the Church, by its religious who were in
no wise distinguished externally from secular priests, by the
wide freedom of action left to each member within a tightly structured
Order, religious life was for the first time fully liberated from
the structures of monasticism. These had determined its boundaries
ever since the Carolingian reform limited the approved practice
of the evangelical counsels to the single form of monastic life.
As with all the great foundations of this sort, Ignatius of Loyola's
was the fruit: of a long evolution. It was prepared by the whole
movement of reform which had quickened the Church during the previous
decades. The
Council of Trent, in its twenty-fifth session, dealt only with
those who were legally considered religious: de Regularibus
et Monialibus, i.e., men and women religious with solemn vows. The
Council prepared a complete
armory of regulations, prescriptions and sanctions aimed
at reforming the religious life. Although Pius V, the great papal
reformer, addressed himself to the task, this reform, so juridical
and institutional in character (like that of Aix-la-Chapelle),
does not appear to have achieved very great results. If an effective
reform of religious life did take place, it was due rather. to
the breath of renewal which had already stirred the religious
orders prior to the Council and which continued
to gather momentum of its own 'accord. The most successful of
the reforms was surely that of Carmel brought
about by the energetic and untiring mystic, Teresa of Avila,
and her faithful friend and collaborator, John of the Cross. Simultaneously
we witness the continued foundation of new communities. Among
many others I shall single out that of the Oratory, founded by
the exceedingly likeable, cheerful, and disconcerting Philip Neri.
The Oratory is the first instance of what we know today as a society
of common life walkout vows. It was made up of clergy and devout
laymen whose lives were governed by a very simple rule. It offered
a harmonious blend of prayers
and activity, without the imposition of external discipline,
without a narrow regimentation, without any other bond than that
which sprang from mutual affection and daily association. The
effect of Pius V's reform was an increased centralization of religious
life; which was henceforth more and more dependent upon ecclesiastical
authority, and particularly upon the Congregation of Bishops and
Regulars, whose decisions would tend to impose an ever greater
uniformity upon the religious orders and congregations. This reform
constituted a new threat to the life of the Third Order communities
and the "secular" religious established during the
preceding centuries alongside the religious life properly so called. Certain abuses had led the Pope
to take a radical step; by the Constitution Circa
Pastoralis of 1566 he first prescribed a strict insistence upon
enclosure for every monastery. This was followed by an invitation
to the Third Orders and other similar communities to pronounce
the solemn vows which they lacked and consequently to assume the
papal enclosure. In some cases, bishops were authorized to sanction
the continuance of such communities in their form of life, but
the further reception of novices was forbidden them.... Fortunately,
this measure did not receive a literal application and communities
of this kind continued always to exist, although few in number.
Restrictions, however, were lengthy and numerous. In 1572 Gregory
XIII confirmed the measures adopted by Pius V with regard to religious,
and in 1592 the Congregation o€ Bishops and Regulars granted bishops
the authority to prohibit even the common life to Tertiaries who
were unwilling to accept the papal enclosure. The
founding of the Society of Jesus, however, had brought a significant
innovation into this matter.
[11]
It was not only that the scholastics and coadjutor brothers, throughout
a quite lengthy period of probation, were allowed to pronounce
only simple vows; but that the Society itself was composed of
two types of professed, those bound by the solemn profession of
four vows and others by a profession o€ simple vows. The common
objection, according to which all the professed of simple vows
were not "true" religious, was quashed by a solemn declaration
of Gregory XIII in 1584 ; for nearly three centuries, however,
the canonises continued to see in this only a very special privilege. At
the beginning of the seventeenth century the opposition to an
apostolate of women religious who would be uncloistered and without
solemn vows was still exceedingly deep-rooted. St Francis de Sales
had planned a community of women religious who would not live
behind the walls of an enclosure but would devote themselves in
the midst of the world to the practice of charity. His Visitandines,
however, were forced to change their plumage and become cloistered
nuns. Nevertheless, hard on the heels of St Francis de Sales'
failure came the success of St Vincent de Paul and Louise de Marillac;
heedless of canonical distinctions and quite ready to do without
the title of "religious", these women made private vows
only and thus, under the form of a Society of pious women without
public vows, they were able to enjoy the liberty of God's children
and unite an authentic observance of the evangelical counsels
to the service of the poor. The torrent had been released, and
both France and Germany soon possessed numerous congregations
of the same type. To the greater glory of the church-and of the
religious state, from which they were officially excluded
! -these congregations, especially by their teaching and
their care of the sick, secured the practice of Christian charity. Throughout
the course of the seventeenth century communities of men and of
women were multiplied to such an extent that it would be foolhardy
to attempt an enumeration. Although for the most part they were
not religious in the strict sense, these men and women had the
approval of their bishops; and often too their Statutes received
the approbation of the Holy See. In spite of this, the Institutes
themselves were refused approbation, since this would be contrary
to the decision of Pius V ! With
the French Revolution, however, Europe was again to be plunged
into the darkness of night; and at least in France, almost all
organized religious life disappeared. It is in these altogether
extraordinary circumstances that there was set afoot a novel foundation
which is the best example the
past provides of what secular institutes are in our day.
[12]
Father de Clorivière,
impelled by this situation which made ordinary religious life
in possible in France, conceived the creation of communities whose
members would bear no distinguishing marks, would wear no habit,
would live with their families, and would fulfil their usual role
in society. In this way, however, and unknown to anyone, they
would discharge the function of the
expelled religious. After
the Revolution the bishops and popes had to acknowledge the facts
and admit the usefulness and necessity of the
uncloistered communities, which dedicated themselves with genuine
fervour to the works of mercy and of education. These communities,
moreover, were multiplied by the stirrings of religious renewal
which followed the Revolution. While the law recognized as religious
only those Orders with solemn vows and enclosure, the bishops
and the Holy See throughout the nineteenth century gave their
approbation to dozens of religious congregations of simple vows.
Care was always taken, however,
to point out that they were not "religious in the proper
sense". Finally Leo XIII's Constitution Conditae a Christo in 1900 and the Normae of
the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in 1901 adapted the law to
life by recognizing as -religious the congregations of simple
vows. On
the other hand, these Normae systematized the concept of religious
fife to the utmost. They concerned themselves with the detailed
organization of the congregations and orders, and provided
an exact pattern for constitutions In
the constitutional revisions then carried out, many orders and
congregations lost almost entirely the distinctive elements of
their charism. Concurrently,
the laity was acquiring an ever greater self-consciousness and
awareness of its own vocation within the People of God. Social
Catholicism and Catholic Action developed together. It was this
penetration E the whole
social order by the spirit of the Gospel that prepared the way
for' the official acceptance of a form of evangelical life that
had long existed and which was gradually organizing itself: the
secular institute. The Church had always included believers who
sought to live fully the most radical demands of evangelical life
but who, by force of circumstances or by the personal call of
the Lord, were obliged to remain in the world and fulfil their
role in society. They always had an inclination, easily understood,
to gather together in pious associations or societies. With the
nineteenth century many of these groups began to request from
Rome an approbation recognizing their moral and religious worth
and offering a guarantee to prospective members. Unfortunately,
the form of life of these groups did not square with the canonical
concept of religious life, or even with the new idea of a "congregation
of simple vows" which life itself was with difficulty forcing
the curial canonists to accept. A decree of 1889, issued by the
Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, contented itself with words
of praise for the aim of such societies and a declaration that
the only title which could be conferred on them was that of "pious
associations". It was only in 1947 that Pius X11, in his
Constitution Provida Mater
Ecclesia, gave official recognition to the secular
institutes as a state of perfection and conferred on them a juridical
status. There
has been lengthy discussion among theologians to determine whether
the members of such secular institutes are "religious"
or "lay". The members themselves have striven mightily
to preserve their lay status. They succeeded, though only just,
in having a clause inserted into article 11 of Vatican II's decree
Perfectae Caritatis, affirming explicitly
that they "are not religious institutes", though "the
profession of the evangelical counsels made by their members in
the world and with the recognition of the Church is genuine and
complete".
[13]
IV - The Lesson o f History and the Present
Task In
casting a comprehensive glance over the whole course of the evolution
of religious life, we easily distinguish two basic periods, one
stretching from the origins down to the tenth century, and the
other from the Gregorian reform to our present era. In
the first period, after a time of rapid and vast expansion, the
range of the different forms of religious life contracts, like
the folding of a fan. During the early centuries, Christians from
every social class had determined to live their Christian life
without compromise, according to the evangelical counsels. They
either remained in society or withdrew
into solitude, gathered in fraternities or lived as hermits; they
belonged to both the clergy and the laity.
The religious life was not absent from any form of social
existence, but rattier expressed itself in all the forms. Gradually,
however, the extraordinary growth of monasticism occasioned a legislative
activity that slowly transformed religious life into an officially
recognized "state of life" and ended up by withholding
this recognition from the non-monastic forms of religious life.
Ultimately, the Carolingian reform reduced monasticism itself,
at least in the West, to a common denominator. This
"contraction" was not due to the mere fact of monasticism's
extraordinary growth. It was above all due to the waning of the
charismatic grace itself, which surely is not unusual in
so vast and rapid a numerical expansion. Nor was the legislation
as such responsible for this charismatic decline
and the contraction of the forms of religious life. For
the great monastic movements, such as those of Pachomius and Basil,
had proved themselves capable of fostering the growth and survival
of their charism by wise organization. The sclerosis was
brought on when the absence of spiritual vitality and the institutional
degeneration required that a legal code be imposed from without
in order to ensure what St Benedict calls a certain "honestas
morum" (RB, c. 73). From
the eleventh century onwards there appeared a trend in the opposite
direction which has continued down to our own time. Diversity
was once again restored to monasticism as a consequence
of its own inner requirements and within the context of the Gregorian
reform. Then there reappeared alongside monasticism new forms
of religious life, whose gradual "reconquest" of their
right of citizenship within the institutional Church has continued
down to our own day. First there were the canons regular who
joined the observance of the evangelical counsels to the service
of a local Church. They were followed by the mendicant orders
who united it to an apostolate as broad
as the universal Church itself. Then there were the innumerable
forms of uncloistered religious life which little by little acquired,
in actual fact, a place within the bosom of the Church; and ultimately
they gained her legal recognition, at the end of several centuries.
Last of all, with the secular institutes, official recognition
has been given to a state of evangelical perfection in the midst
of the world, without the forms of canonical religious life. This
second period had its origins in the monastic reforms of the eleventh
century; these, in turn, were rooted in the important Gregorian
reform. Now it is common knowledge that this reform was strongly
marked by a movement toward centralization and institutionalization.
Within a civil society characterized by its absolute control,
the Church was able to preserve its independence-or recover it-only
by organizing herself with similar thoroughness. So the religious
life too was cast into the rigid structures of the religious state.
The immediate consequence o€ this step was to deprive it of its
charismatic spontaneity. That idea of a religious state and those
structures have been maintained until our own time, although the
recovery of structural pluralism has periodically required the
addition of new "mansions" to this edifice and the
creation of new species within the genus through conceptual dissection.
After having distinguished the state of the contemplative life
from the state of the active life (and the state of the mixed
life for those who did not fit into either category), another
distinction was made, between Orders and Congregations: then the
latter were in turn distinguished among themselves according to
their different "secondary" ends. Each time life itself
called forth a new form of the religious life, the canoeists had
to perform gymnastics in order to assign it a place within this
framework. Suppleness, however, not being the characteristic grace
of lawyers, they always went through these exercises slowly and
laboriously. Theologians,
for their part, were easily led to consider these structures as
constitutive of the religious state. The old medieval outlook
that saw in every historical fact something acquired once and
for all made it a foregone conclusion that every development of
the religious life could only add a new form to the ancient ones.
In effect, who would dare to call into question structures that
had already received official approval from the highest ecclesiastical
authority? In like manner, if we prescind from the cases where
obvious abuses were suppressed, every reform ran the risk of culminating
in a split of the order into two or more observances: the ancient
observance and the modern, called and discalced, bearded and clean-shaven,
etc. We
perceive then that it is in the religious life that the Church
has experienced most intensely the tension which is so characteristic
of her-that between charism and institution. The charism of religious
life, like any other, must accept organization if it wishes to
endure. Since, however, perfect harmony between charism and structure
is simply impossible in this life, history bears witness to a
sort of give-and-take, a certain alternation of charisms being
stifled by institutions which have become too cumbersome and institutions
breaking up under the living pressure of grace, culminating in
the creation of new institutions. And the whole process is punctuated
by periods of relative equilibrium. The
charismatic nature of the religious life becomes quite evident
in the course of these developments. Never has a form of religious
life been created by hierarchical authority, and never has a reform
initiated by authoritative decree done any more than prevent the
worst. Whenever religious life appears in the Church or undergoes
reform, there is always to be found at the bottom of this beginning
or renewal, a charismatic person or persons moved irresistibly
by the Spirit. The genuine reforms, those which bear fruit and
open up new ways, are spiritual reforms.`
The heart of reform is reform of the heart. The
task which faces religious today is gigantic. The Orders and Congregations,
which have been in a hurry to revise the text of their Constitutions
and books of regulations and now flatter themselves that their
consciences ,ire clear and their task of renewal is accomplished
are liable to discover that their attainment has been somewhat abortive.
What is most urgently needed is a spiritual renewal which itself
will beget, little by little, those structures necessary for life.
To begin with the reform of structures, without sufficient concern
for spiritual reform, is indeed to put the cart before the horse.
Exactly
as in the days of Gregory VII, we find ourselves at a significant
turning point in the history of civilization. Society has revamped
its foundations, and the Church since Vatican II has entered
upon a self-examination concerning her own identity in order that
she also may create for herself now bases within this changing
world. Religious orders too must undertake the same quest for
their identity. It is no longer a question of continuing to multiply
the forms of religious life or the "observances" within
a given Order; Human ingenuity, after all, has its limits and
new foundations would be compelled to imitate the existing communities.
What is needed, rather, is an effort to complete the broad cycle of evolution which I have
described by returning to a more perfect unity within
a pluralism that has been consciously rediscovered. Thus of necessity
we shall come to the point of asking ourselves whether the great
monastic family needs so many juridically distinct Orders, whether
it is opportune to maintain so man nursing and teaching institutes,
possessing an identical way of life and Constitutions that -ire
practically interchangeable, yet each under the obligation of
keeping up a sizable curia, and so on. A
slow adapting of the legal situation to the factual conditions
imposed by life is no longer the task we expect our canonists
to perform; rather we look to them to develop framework sufficiently
flexible to allow life its free development under the guidance
of the Spirit. For in the last analysis the religious state is
merely a concept. What exists concretely are religious persons, men and women who have been personally summoned by Christ
and who must respond
to this call in a personal way. The Spirit does not speak to institutions,
but to men. What must concern us, more than the preservation and
adaptation of a state, is the promotion of life. During
the pontificate of Paul III, the "Commission of Reform"
charged with preparing for the Council of Trent proposed, purely
and simply, the suppression of all existing Orders? A
radical measure, indeed, that was not adopted by the Council -
and no doubt with good reason, for all genuine evolution
must be a synthesis of continuity and disruption. It remains
true, however, that something must always die if life is to spring
up anew. Unless the grain of wheat falls into
the ground and dies.... The drama and the suffering undergone
by more than one religious Order today offer us a glimpse of the
seeds of new life. Mistassini Translated by James Jarzembowski, Mepkin. * This study
first appeared in Italian, as the first chapter of a book published
by a group of specialists from different countries: Agostino Favale and others, Per una presenza viva dei religiosi
nella Chiesa e nel mondo, Ed. LDC Rome 1970.
[1]
Cf. P. Jordan, "Pythagoras and Monachism", in Traditio 1961, p. 432-441.
[2]
Cf. J. Neusner, "The Fellowship (Chabourah) in the Second Jewish Commonwealth", in The Harvard
Theol. Review 1960, p. 125-142.
[3]
Cf. J. Carmignac and P. Guilbert,
Les textes de Qumran traduits et annotés, T. I, La Règle de la Communauté, la Règle de la guerre, les hymnes, Paris 1961.
[4]
Cf. K. VI. Truhlar, "Laïcs
et conseils",
in Laïcs et vie chrétienne parfaite, T. I, Rome 1963, p. 163-195; and especially S. Legasse, L'appel du riche,
contribution à l'étude des fondements scripturaires de l'état religieux, Paris 1966.
[5]
H. Schurmann “Le groupe des disciples
de Jésus, signe pour Israel et prototype de la vie selon les conseils", in Christus no. 50, 1966, p. 184-209.
[6]
J. Gribomont,
"Le monachisme au sein de l'Église en Syrie et en Cappadoce",
in Studia Monastica 7 (1965), p. 7-24.
[7]
Cf. A. Veilleux,
"The Interpretation of a Monastic Rule", in The Cistercian Spirit. A
Symposium in Memory of Thomas Merton
(Cistercian Studies Series - 3), Spencer 1970.
[8]
Cf. R. Morghen, "Riforma
monastica e spiritualità cluniacense", in Spiritualità cluniacense, Convegni del centro di studi sulla
spiritualità medievale, II, Todi 1960, p. 31-56.
[9]
Cf. C. Violante, "Il monachesimo cluniacense di
fronte al mondo politico ed ecclesiastico (secoli X et Xl)", ibidem, p. 153-242.
[10]
L. J. Lekai, "Motives and Ideals of the
Eleventh Century Monastic Renewal", in The Cistercian Spirit: A Symposium in Memory
of Thomas Merton (Cistercian Studies Series - 3),
Spencer 1970, and Cistercian Studies IV (1969), p. 3-20.
[11]
See the recent study by E. Olivares, "Les vœux des premiers
étudiants jésuites", in Vie consacrée 41 (1969), p. 233-238.
[12]
Cf. M. Parodi, "Le charisme du Père de Clorivière", in Vie
consacrée 41 (1969), p. 95-112.
[13]
Cf. J. Beyer, "Les instituts séculiers",
in L'adaptation et la
rénovation de la vie religieuse (Unam Sanctam
- 62), Paris 1967, p. 375-384. |
|
||