cistercian TOPICS
|
|||
THE 1987 MIXED GENERAL MEETING
When the Capitulants left Agenda
and Procedure
The agenda was packed.
Establishing the final version of our Constitutions, for
both the monks and the nuns, was obviously the main task; but
there were also various Statutes to be discussed.
Other important matters like the incorporation of the Congregation
of Las Huelgas into our Order were added to the list of the usual
business to which every General Chapter has to attend as, for
example, the reading of some House Reports.
Like any piece of heavy equipment, the Mixed General Meeting
was slow to put in gear. More
or less five days were needed to polish up the procedure.
The Commission for the Constitutions (CoCoRo) was elected
on the fourth day of the Meeting, with the mandate to present
to the Assembly the Criteria according to which it intended to
work. Those criteria were
presented to the Assembly on the following day and voted on the29th,
sixth day of the Chapter. One
quarter of the working days of the Meeting had already passed. Revision
of the Constitutions
The Constitutions voted at
All the new or amended texts had to be voted at the Mixed
General Meeting in
Out of respect for the texts of H/E, MMP II designed a
procedure according to which there would be a vote to confirm
(or not) the H/E text before any vote on a modified or new text.
The intention was excellent.
In practice, due to the fact that many Constitutions and
Statutes were very long and complex, and the changes proposed were numerous, that procedure
caused the voting sheets and the voting sessions to be exceedingly
complicated and time consuming.
The great number of Commissions (17 of them) could have
make the work much more burdensome than it was. At the very beginning of the Meeting, after
the Commissions had made a first study of the question of the
Unity of the Order, the Coordinating Commission asked all the
Commissions to give a mini-report composed of at most five statements. That proved to be an excellent procedure that
saved a lot of time and that was used later on by the CoCoRo. Improvement or loss?
What was the final result of that general revision of our
Constitutions? At the end of the Mixed General Meeting an European
abbot told me that when people unearth our Constitutions, in a
few centuries from now, everyone will be convinced that the text
voted at the Rome Meeting was the first one, and that the
There is no doubt that some of the changes were improvements.
For example the section on the consultation of the brothers (sisters),
the council of the abbot (abbess) and the conventual chapter has
been rearranged by the Law Commission in a more logical and more
harmonious manner. The section on ordinary and extraordinary administration
is now also clearer and canonically more accurate. Other changes
harmonized the two texts, inserting into the monks' text some
of the theological or spiritual ameliorations made by the abbesses
at El Escorial.
On the other hand, several of the amendments proposed and
accepted did not take enough into account the overall structure
of the whole book of Constitutions, and some represent a mentality
different from the one that presided at
Some of the changes seem also to betray a mentality less
open to pluralism and more concerned about "control"
than the H/E version was. A
good example is the statute about the right of the abbot/abbess
to visit the cells of the brothers/sisters! To some articles or statutes mentioning the
responsibility of the community, a caveat has been added reminding
that the superior has the final word.
Surprisingly enough, an example this comes at the end of
a constitution on the active participation of the brethren, even
if the principle of the abbot's/abbess' having the final word
is clearly expressed elsewhere. From this point of view the mentality revealed
by some of the new amendments is a return to the mentality of
some years ago. It might
be an exaggeration to say that it is a return to «before 1969"; but we can certainly say that 1987 was
to 1984 and 1985what 1971 was to 1969.
(The Chapter of 1971 was the one at which, after voting
the principle of pluralism two years before, it was felt necessary
to render somewhat "uniform" the application the applications
of that "pluralism".). Unity
of the Order
In spite of the inevitable complex procedure, the final
revision of our Constitutions would have been a reasonably simple
task, had it not been for the need to find a formula for maintaining
the Unity of the Order while respecting the autonomy of the two
"Branches". With perhaps a very few exceptions, nobody
wanted to separate the Order into two juridically separate Orders
without any form of interdependence.
All wanted to maintain the unity; but the problem was to find out how to
articulate it juridically.
At
At El Escorial, the Abbesses adopted the same principle
but went a step forward, stating that the matters affecting both
monks and nuns together were referred to the pastoral care and
authority of the abbots and abbesses gathered in General Chapter
either jointly or separately. They cast that vote after long and difficult
discussions, during which all the arguments pro and contra were
expressed. Therefore the meaning of that vote and its consequences
were quite clear for the abbesses who were at El Escorial.
Between El Escorial and the MGM in
The whole Mixed General Meeting revolved around that question,
and the growth towards a consensus was beautiful to watch, although
it was amore painful growth than the similar process realized
at Holyoke and even at El Escorial (where it was already more
difficult).
During the five days spent on Procedure, the Commissions
had sometime to make a first study on that question and were asked
to give a mini-report on the 27th of Nov.
After presenting a synthesis of those reports on the 28th,
the CoCoRo was able to offer, two days later, a Preliminary Declaration
on the Unity of the Order (based on those mini-reports), that
was confirmed by a quasi unanimous vote on the following day (132
yes, 6 no, 3 abs, 2 jm).
A first straw vote, taken on December 1st, showed that,
concretely, the two options of either "One Mixed General
Chapter" or "One General Chapter of abbots and one General
Assembly of Abbesses" were not very popular.
The great majority of the votes were divided among the
two possibilities of "One Mixed General Chapter with two
Assemblies/Chapters» and "Two interdependent General Chapters".
After the Commissions had made a first study of most of
the Constitutions of the Third Part, we moved to study the Second
Part, letting the consensus simmer on the back burner.
When a second straw vote was taken on Dec. 7th.,
the consensus was very clear and strong.
The large majority of both Chapters saw the possibility
of building a consensus at this Mixed General Meeting around the
formula of "two interdependent Chapters".
There was an atmosphere of hope.
Even those who would have desired something else (including
those who would have wanted One Mixed General Chapter) felt that
we had made significant progress towards a practical solution.
There was some form of backlash on December 10. A fortuitous series of events shook up the consensus.
Earlier in the Chapter, a small Canonical Commission was
created in order to avoid technical discussions in the Plenary
Assembly. That Canonists' Group presented to the Plenary Assembly,
on the morning of Dec. 10, a set of reflections on the Unity of
the Order that at least implicitly questioned the wisdom of the
former straw vote on that question. The exchange that followed, especially two well
structured interventions, stressed the danger of our becoming
two Congregations if we had two interdependent General Chapters. By another coincidence, the Mother Federal of
the Federation of Las Huelgas unexpectedly presented, that same
afternoon, after the coffee break, the request of the Nuns of
the Federation of Las Huelgas to be incorporated in the Order
as a Congregation. Definitely the specter of the "congregations"
brooded over the whole day. All this brought on the Assembly, on the Commissions,
and on the work of the MGM in general a cloud of gloom that took
many days before disappearing (and probably never completely disappeared).
The consensus seriously shaken up on that day was slowly
rebuilt and could be expressed on Dec. 14th. in
a long series of straw votes concerning all the main structures
of the Order treated in the Third Part of the Constitutions, and
giving to the CoCoRo some much needed indications on how to prepare
the texts to be voted. In the end, most of the final votes, including
the one concerning the two interdependent General Chapters were
passed with a very high majority, often close to unanimity.
All during the elaboration of that consensus, work was
being done on the long Second Part of the Constitutions and also
on the First One. The long, painful and boring sessions of vote
on innumerable little details should not make us forget that some
important questions were treated smoothly and with very satisfactory
results at the same time: for example the new Cst. 19 replacing
fortunately, and without much discussion, the Cst.19-20-21 of
H/E, and the new Cst. 29 (replacing 31) on the separation from
the world, fruit of several successive redactions in a beautiful
atmosphere of dialogue. Statute
of Foundations
The manner in which the Statute on Foundations was treated
was also very interesting. After
a first study in Commissions and a fruitful discussion in Plenary
session, it was felt that a small Commission was better adapted
for such technical matters as those that had still to be clarified.
A special commission representing various Regions of the Order
and various fields of expertise was created and produced a text
that was well accepted by the Assembly at the end of the Meeting. Statute
of Formation
There was no time left to study the important Statute on
Formation. But that may be just as well. A long and important text received at the Chapter
itself could not have been studied seriously right away. A large part of the next Chapter may be reserved
for that, the question being of the utmost importance for the
future of the Order Collegiality.
The question of Collegiality is a mysterious one. More than a decade ago some superiors and canonists
in the Order thought that the canonical concept of collegiality
could be used to give a harmonious juridical expression to the
structures that the Order has been giving itself since Vatican
II. The idea generated
some fears and the image of a Trojan Horse was often used. At
After Las
Huelgas
Another painful experience was that concerning the request
from Las Huelgas. We were obviously not ready to make a decision
on that question. But,
as the Abbot General told us, expressing clearly his sadness about
the whole issue, it was difficult to understand why most of us
came to the Chapter unprepared to treat that question, while it
had been on the agenda for several years. Dom Ambrose could easily show, for example,
that some people were scared at the prospect of things that has
been in fact the situation of the last thirty years (like our
Permanent Council taking care of their ordinary business with
the Holy See). Few Regions have made a serious study of the question.
There was a real fear that to accept Las Huelgas at this
time would complicate our dealing with the Holy See concerning
the approval of our Constitutions.
It is not certain at all that such a fear is founded.
It any case, it is to be hoped that, at the next General
Chapter(s), after(hopefully) the approval
of our Constitutions, it will be possible to study the request
of our sisters of Las Huelgas with full objectivity and open minds
as well as open hearts. It
was certainly unfortunate (although perhaps unavoidable) that
such an important question came up for voting on the very last
evening of the Meeting. The
fact that the vote of the Abbots and that of the Abbesses differed
considerably on that question created some disappointment that
certainly influenced the following vote on whether we should have
in 1990a Mixed General Meeting with the possibility of meeting
in separate Chapters or Separate Chapters with the possibility
of mixed meetings. The desire has already been expressed by some
Capitulants for that question to be reconsidered by the Central
Commissions, the argument being that
the agenda of the Chapters should be established before we can
decide how much work we will do separately and how much together.
In any case, the painful experience of the last voting
session should not make us forget that, as a whole, this large
mixed meeting has functioned surprisingly well.
After the slow beginning due to the large number of participants
rather than to the mixed character of the group, it has functioned
much more smoothly than most people had expected, and it has achieved
a lot of work. If this has been possible at the first try,
and working on extremely complicated matters, a Mixed General
Meeting on Formation and other similar basic issues will be the
most pleasant and fruitful experience. Preparation
for 1990
Some uncertainties remain concerning the preparation of
the two General Chapters of 1990.
According to the Constitutions, it is the task of the two
Central Commissions to prepare the two General Chapters, coordinating
the initiatives coming from the Regional Conferences.
But no mechanism has been established for that work of
coordination. For example
the Regions are entirely free to determine the time and the frequency
of their meetings.
If the Central Commission met twice between two Chapters,
it could establish an agenda for the next Chapter at its first
meeting, then the Regional Conferences could work on that agenda,
and the Central Commission could bring their results together
and finalize the agenda of the Chapter at its second meeting.
If the Central Commission meets only
once between two Chapters, as is the present situation, it can
coordinate the initiatives of the Regions in two ways.
It may establish the agenda of the next Chapter on the basis of
the work of the various Regional Conferences. For this process to be fair, the date of the
meeting of the Central Commission should be announced well in
advance, and care should be taken that all the Regions meet before
the meeting of the Central Commission and that there is enough
time for their reports to be communicated to all the members of
the Central Commission. Nothing
of that is assured presently.
Some Regions do not plan to meet before 1989, and although
the date of the Central Commission(s) meeting has not been decided,
it seems it could be in January 1989.
If the agenda of the Chapter is established on the basis
of the meetings of only some of the Regions, it is unfair towards
the other Regions.
On the other hand the Central Commission could establish
the agenda on the basis of its own evaluation of the needs of
the Order. Then its meeting should be very early in the three-year
period between two Chapters, in order to allow enough time for
all the Regions to have a meeting on that agenda and to communicate
their results and suggestions to the whole Order long before the
Chapter.
Some clarifications of that process seem to be needed in
the statutes concerning the Central Commission(s) and the Regional
Conferences. Conyers, March 17, 1988 ****** Return to Table of Content |
|
||