cistercian TOPICS
|
|||
|
Structures at the service of life by : Proemium : This paper was written at the request of the Regional
Conference of Central and Northern Europe (CNE) at its meeting
in 2006, in view of the meeting to be held in 2007.
The request was formulated in the following votes: We feel the need to further clarify the pastoral role
of the mixed commissions and its mode of exercise (vote 1.1).
We wish to study this question more in depth at the next regional
conference, within the general context of the structures of the
Order. (vote 1.2) We wish to continue our reflection on the structures
of the Order and more particularly the recent ones (Commissions of Aid for the Future,
mixed commissions,
regions) and on their relation with the traditional structures
(filiation, Father Immediate, Abbot General). (vote 4) I was designated to write the working documents requested by votes 1.2
and 4. I have found fit to deal with both topics together in a
single paper. -- AV * * * Our post-Vatican II Constitutions, which reversed the
pyramidal vision characteristic of the ecclesiology of the previous
centuries, which was quite obvious in our 1924-1926 Constitutions,
take as their starting point, rather than administrative structures,
the call of God and the response of the monk or nun through his
or her monastic consecration. Indeed, the local community is at
the heart of the Order, the monk or nun is at the heart of the
local community and Christ is at the heart of the monk or nun.
Nothing in our life has meaning unless it fosters an intense communion
between the monk or nun and God, and, in God and through God,
with his or her brothers or sisters, with the Church and with
society, as well as with the cosmos. This call to a life of
communion with God is inscribed in human nature. It is not proper
to Christians and even less so to monks or nuns. A Christian is
called to it and missioned to that effect through the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. Once he or she has received that revelation, he
or she cannot return to God except by following Christ.
In so doing, a monk adopts as a permanent state of life
some of the radical calls made by Jesus to some persons in the
Gospel: the call to celibacy, to poverty and to radical renunciation
of one’s self-will. Most important of all, the monk adopts a rule
of life which becomes a discipline for him and whose use by many
others before him has shown its ability to foster the gift of
self. Finally, if he is a cenobite like the disciples of Benedict,
he lives this calling in a community of brethren who have made
their commitment under a rule and an abbot. For the Cistercian today,
the spiritual vision which guides him in his life of communion
with God and his following of Christ is found in the Gospel. He
finds in all of the great monastic tradition, but more especially
in the Rule of saint Benedict, a practical interpretation of that
Gospel. The particular vision according to which he lives the
Gospel is expressed in the Cistercian tradition as it was succinctly
expressed in our time by the Declaration
on Cistercian life adopted by the General Chapter of 1969[1] and later in the Constitutions of the Order and all
the Statutes subsequently passed by the Order. In this paper, we will
first review the various structures of the Order and provide a
brief description of their reason for being and role; then, in
the second part, we will analyse their interaction.
A third part, in the form of an Excursus, will study the pastoral role
of the Mixed commissions of the MGM (Mixed General Meeting). I – THE VARIOUS STRUCTURES OF THE ORDER A)The
autonomy of the local community Cistercian monks are essentially
cenobites. The most fundamental
structure of Cistercian life is therefore the « local community »[2]. The term « local community »
must be understood to mean not only the group of brother or sisters
who concretely make up each local community, but the rule of life
around which that community is gathered together and which it
has given itself or has accepted, as well as the internal structures
which govern the life of that community. This is what our Constitutions
often refer to as the Cistercian conversatio. Cistercian monks live
according to the Rule of saint Benedict.
It is obvious that that Rule was written for an autonomous
community. Although Benedict of Nursia may have founded a certain
number of communities, if we are to believe the second book of
the treatise of biblical exegesis by saint Gregory, known as his
« Dialogues », and even though Benedict no doubt foresaw
that his Rule might be used by other communities, he did not provide
for any relation of subordination or other relation between those
communities. The autonomy
of each local community is an essential value for him, one that
is self-evident. As a part of the broader community of the Church,
that community was obviously subject, in Benedict’s time, to the
diocesan bishop, although the latter’s intervention does not appear
relevant, except in order to confer orders on monks or supply
the priests needed for the liturgical life of the community. The bishop may still intervene, together with
the faithful in the area, if a community should choose an unworthy
abbot with the aim of leading a reprehensible community life.
In the course of Benedictine
history, the great Cluniac reform, splendid as it was, soon found
itself in an impasse precisely because, for the purpose of endowing
many communities with the civil and ecclesiastical freedom (libertas) won by The autonomy of the local
community was one of the most essential elements of the Cistercian
reform, and the rapid and incredible rise of the Order was very
largely due to the most delicate balance which the Cistercians
were the first to discover between the autonomy of the local community
and a large body of monasteries united among themselves by the
bonds of charity and conceived of as a community of communities[3].
The centuries of decadence were, generally speaking, those during
which that autonomy was no longer respected, just as, conversely,
the great reforms always started from a
concrete community which first reformed itself in a fully
autonomous manner before bringing other communities to commune
freely in its spiritual experience. One of the finest examples
is that of La Trappe and its reform under Armand-Jean Le Bouthillier
de Rancé. In our present Constitutions,
the local community has all it needs in order to manage itself
without need for any outside intervention in its internal life.
Each monk or nun finds his or her spiritual orientation in the
Word of God, which is the subject of daily meditation, in the
Rule of saint Benedict, as well as in the life and teaching of
the Church. All this is recalled and commented upon by the abbot
in his chapters. Add to this the common regulations which that
community has given itself, just like all the other Communities
of the Order (we will see further on how), and it has all it needs
in order to function. The abbot’s primary mission
is to see to the quality of the spiritual life of each of his
brethren and of the community they form.
He does so, according to the manner of the prophets of
the Old Testament, by reminding them that the search for God comes
first, as well as by recalling to them the means they have freely
chosen to that end and, if need be, by reminding them of their
faults and by resorting to punishment in some cases. Whenever
the community finds itself without a superior, either due to the
latter’s death or resignation or simply because he has come to
the end of his term of office if he was elected for a definite
time, the community, then acting as a college and with full autonomy,
chooses an abbot for itself. Because the community belongs to an Order, this
exercise of autonomy will be presided by a member of the Order
(normally the Father Immediate), which does not by any means belong
to the electoral college, and who has no right whatsoever to influence
the latter’s decision, but who guarantees that the procedure followed
was proper. The election will be confirmed, in the name of the
Order, by the Abbot General, who shall not intervene either in
the community’s autonomous choice of a superior[4]. If, for various
reasons, the community is unable to elect an abbot for itself,
then, as a very exceptional measure, a superior, known as a superior
ad nutum, is appointed for it. Once appointed,
he has the same responsibility as an elected superior, and the
community has lost nothing of its autonomy[5]. By electing an abbot,
the community entrusts him with the care of guiding it and thus
of taking all the decisions required for its proper running, both
spiritual and material. Forms of government of a more collegial
– some would say more democratic – nature are possible, even inside
monastic life. But that is not our conversatio. According to the Cistercian conversatio which we freely choose by making
profession in a community of our Order, the abbot must
assume the ultimate responsibility
for all the decisions taken within the community during his term
of office. The conventual chapter has no power of « decision »
at all, except when it acts collegially in order to elect the
abbot. This does not mean that the abbot must or may act as a
despot. Quite the contrary, he is invited by the Rule and by the
Constitutions as well as by common sense to take advice as often
as possible. As the experience accumulated over the centuries
has revealed the possibilities of going astray and in order to
protect communities against possible abuses or mistakes on the
part of superiors, the Constitutions (in the wake of the universal
law of the Church) provide that there is a series of decisions
which the local abbot may not make without the agreement of either
the conventual chapter or of a more limited council (which he
must have), to be given sometimes by an absolute majority and
sometimes by a majority of two thirds. There are a certain number of other decisions
which he may not take validly without having at least consulted
either the conventual chapter or the council. However, even though
there are decisions which he cannot
make without having first received the consent of the conventual
chapter or of his council, or, in other cases, without consulting
them, no other authority outside the community may make those
decisions in his place. In more recent, juridically
centralized religious institutes, the master or mistress of novices
or the bursar may be appointed by the provincial authority and
not be subject in the exercise of their duties to the authority
of the superior in whose community they live. Such a thing is
inconceivable in our tradition. Even though it is appropriate that the abbot
give the novice master and cellarer, as well as the infirmarian,
etc., a great deal of freedom of action and trust them very broadly,
it is always he who, in the final analysis, will have to bear
the burden of all the most important decisions. As we said earlier, Cistercian
communities are gathered together in an Order. By being part of this great community of communities
called the Order, the local communities do not give up their own
autonomy, but commit themselves to exercising it according to
common norms which they give themselves at meetings of the General
Chapter, or which they receive from the Church either in the Constitutions
(which have been «given» to us by the Holy See, even though we
have written them) or in laws or Regulations of a more universal nature[6]. The only authority above the local community, within the Order, is the General Chapter.
The Chapter may, of course, sometimes act through individual
persons to whom it entrusts various assignments.
These persons then act not by virtue of any personal authority,
but of the authority delegated to them. While our Constitutions
give the members of the Order a right of recourse (to the Father
Immediate, to the Abbot General, to the General Chapter), that
right of recourse is by no means a right of appeal.
The physical or legal person to whom recourse has been
made must intervene pastorally, listen to the various parties
and steer them towards the proper decisions, but may not substitute
either for the local community or for the local abbot. Moreover, on account of
the nature of the Order as just described, the superiors of all
the communities of the Order have a collegial responsibility toward the entire Order and toward
each community. They exercise
it through various structures, both ancient and recent which can be truly effective only to the extent
that they respect and promote the autonomy of the local community. It is thus important to
clarify the relationship between the General Chapter and the local
communities before studying more in detail the role of all the
other intermediate or ancillary structures, whether permanent
or temporary, and especially their interactions. B) The authority of the General Chapter – its extent and limits Our Constitutions state
that the General Chapter
is the « supreme » authority within the Order (C. 77,1). This means that inside the Order there is no
authority above the General Chapter.
More than that, as the General Chapter is a « college »
in the strict sense (see CIC 115,2), no capitulant has any authority
properly so called over
the other Capitulants within the college. The president of a college is a primus inter pares responsible for convening
the meeting and for its proper running. Moreover, the Chapter
endows itself with Regulations in order to ensure its proper running
and can, therefore, give various persons some authority in relation
to the running of the Chapter, but never as regards the content
of the decisions, which must always remain collegial. A notion that is rather
widespread, even though it is rarely expressed explicitly, is
that since the power of the General Chapter is
« supreme » it is also « absolute ».
This is of course a serious mistake. The General Chapter cannot
validly take any decision, except in matters in which either
the Constitutions of the Order or the universal law of the Church
gives it explicit authority. Any decision in an
area not provided for by law or which goes beyond the scope provided
by law may or must even be deemed to be invalid. The authority or competence
of the General Chapter is described in C. 79. The General Chapter has no power beyond that
conferred upon it in that Constitution and its statutes, except
for that which may be granted to it by the universal law of the
Church. C) Filiation
and the service of the Father Immediate As soon as Cîteaux’s first
daughter houses began making foundations of their own in the 12th
century, a system of filiation
was set up in the Order. This, together with the General Chapter,
is the oldest and most basic structure of the Order. Each house
is linked to another house of the Order – normally its founding
house, if it still exists – which is its mother house, and whose
superior is known as the Father Immediate. Here the situation of
the nuns differs somewhat from that of the monks. The history
of the acceptance of nuns into the Order is a complex one and
there is no need to retrace it or even summarize it here. Let
it suffice to say that for several centuries the nuns' bond with
the Order was established through the affiliation of each monastery
of women with a monastery of men whose superior became the Father
Immediate of the nuns. Today, the role of the Father Immediate
of a monastery of nuns is the same, legally speaking, as that
of the Father Immediate of a monastery of monks, even though in
practice the lived reality is often quite different. In fact,
even inside male fililations that relationship is also lived in
various ways. On several occasions the
idea of establishing a system of filiation within the feminine
branch, parallel to that of the masculine branch, has been discussed
in the Order. The question was explicitly raised during the writing
of the Constitutions, and again, more recently, in the context
of the possibility of a single General Chapter for monks and nuns.
This proposal has not awakened any enthusiasm thus far,
whether among the nuns or among the monks. When a monastery of nuns
acquires its autonomy, it ceases to have any legal bond whatsoever
with its founding house. This does not mean, however, that all
bonds are broken between the daughter house and the house that
gave life to it. In general, a common spirit is maintained between
mother and daughter (except in some cases where the second was
founded more or less in reaction against the former), and that
spirit is nourished by frequent contacts and by services of all
kinds, especially when a monastery has several foundations. Bonds of filiation are
essentially bonds between
houses. (That is why it would make no sense for a community
to change mother houses simply because at a given time the relationship
with the Father Immediate is difficult.) This leads to a consequence
concerning the very nature of the rôle of the Father Immediate,
which renders any delegation of that role very problematic from
a legal point of view. In
fact, there is no « office » (officium) of Father Immediate capable of being delegated. An abbot’s
role as Father Immediate toward the daughter houses of his community
is a dimension of his office as abbot. Even when he delegates
the pastoral care of one of his daughter houses to someone else,
he remains, strictly speaking, its « Father Immediate »,
since that is an essential dimension of his office as superior
of his own community. The
expression « delegated Father Immediate » is therefore
a very broad way of speaking, which is devoid of any legal value
properly so called. And since delegated authority may be sub-delegated
ad actum only, one can certainly not speak of a « sub-delegated
Father Immediate ». It
may be said at the very most that a superior performs this or
that act (such as making a Visitation or presiding an election)
as a delegate « for that act » of the « delegated
Father Immediate ». There are no vicar superiors
in our Order. The possibility
was considered at the General
Chapter of 2002 (as a substitute for the superior ad nutum), but the idea was dropped. For
someone to be appointed a vicar, we would first have to introduce
the office of vicar into our law, as it does
not exist there. Then someone could be appointed to such an office.
In the present state of our law, those who are called « vicars »
are not vicars in strictly legal terms, but rather persons to
whom some form of authority has been delegated. As stated at the beginning
of this paper, the only « authority », strictly speaking,
above the local community in Cistercian law is the General Chapter. The Father Immediate is not, therefore, the
« superior » of his
daughter houses. He may not, therefore, either give orders
or grant permissions either to the members of his daughter houses
or to their superiors. This does not mean that his role, whose
nature is entirely pastoral, is not of paramount importance. He
exercises this pastoral care in the name of the entire Order,
and that is an exercise of the collegial responsibility which
all the superiors of the Order, both monks and nuns, have toward
all the monasteries of the Order. His role, which consists
essentially in « vigilance » (in the most positive sense
of the term), is very aptly expressed in Constitution 74.1: The Father Immediate
is to watch over the progress of his daughter houses. While respecting
the autonomy of the daughter house he is to help and support the
abbot in the exercise of his pastoral charge and to foster concord
in the community. If he notices there a violation of a precept
of the Rule or of the Order, he is to try with humility and charity
and having consulted the local abbot, to remedy the situation. While the last phrase
of this text implicitly grants the Father Immediate the power
of remedying « violations of a precept
of the Rule or of the Order », this Constitution does not
give him any authority to intervene otherwise ex
auctoritate in the internal life of the community. Moreover, that same Constitution opens up for
him a very broad scope of pastoral care, which must be exercised
constantly and not only on the occasion of the Regular Visitation. D) The
Regular Visitation The Regular Visitation
is mentioned by C. 71.4, together with filiation, as one of the
institutions by means of which the collegial pastoral care of
all the superiors toward all the monasteries of the Order is exercised. According to the tradition
of the Order, the Regular Visitation is a dimension of the exercise
of the pastoral care of a superior toward the daughter houses
of his community. In monasteries of monks, the Regular Visitation
is normally made by the Father Immediate, although he may sometimes
delegate it. He is never under any obligation to do so. In the
case of the nuns, the situation is different. Due to the fact that for a long time the nuns
were removed from the authority of the General Chapter and placed
under that of the bishops, their Visitor, for a long time thereafter,
was the Abbot General. The
Abbot General, of course, almost always delegated another abbot
for the Visitation, usually after consulting the abbess of the
monastery to be visited. A few years ago, the responsibility of making
the Visitation was given back to the Father Immediate; but the
nuns wrote in their Constitutions (C. 75.1) that the Father Immediate
must delegate someone else once every six years (which is not
necessarily synonymous with « one out of every three Visitations »,
because, while Visitations must be made at least every two years,
they may take place more often, and we may consider that, under
special circumstances, four or five Visitations -- rather than
only three -- may take place within a period of six years). The Constitutions also
give the Abbot General the power to make Visitations both in monasteries
of monks and of nuns, even if a Visitation has just been made
by the Father Immediate -- which does not, at least theoretically,
deprive the Father Immediate of his right to make his own Visitation
at the same time! Even though this might, in theory, lead to some
« competition » between the Abbot General and a Father
Immediate, this does not seem ever to have happened, as everyone
has the good of the communities in mind. Just like the Father Immediate,
the Visitor, in his capacity as Visitor, is not the canonical
« superior » of the house visited. The local superior
retains all his authority as a superior during the Visitation[7], and he is of course called upon to act in close cooperation with the
Visitor for the good of his community[8]. As we have seen earlier in the
case of the Father Immediate, the Visitor may correct situations
that call for correction,
but he may not intervene ex
auctoritate in the running of the community[9]. The scope of his vigilance and
of his pastoral care, as described in Constitution 75.2 and in
much more detail in the Statute on the Regular Visitation, is
nonetheless immense. As stated in C. 75.2: The
purpose of the regular visitation is to strengthen and supplement
the pastoral action of the local abbot, to correct it where necessary,
and to motivate the brothers to lead the Cistercian life with
a renewed spiritual fervor. This requires the active co-operation
of the community. The visitor is faithfully to observe the precepts
of law, the spirit of the Charter of Charity and the norms of
the General Chapter. E) The Abbot General[10] Throughout the history of Cîteaux, before the Order broke
up into Observances, the role of the abbot of Cîteaux was very
important as a moral authority, much more than as a juridical
one. He presided the General Chapters,
but had no power to intervene in the communities
of the Order, aside from his role as Visitor in his daughter houses.
At the General Chapter
held in 1892 for the union of the Congregations originating from
La Trappe, our Order chose to give itself an Abbot General.
The latter’s role, in both our present and former Constitutions,
is essentially to work towards maintaining and developing communion
between the communities and also between the two branches of the
Order, especially since we have explicitly become a single Order
with two distinct General Chapters. This same role will of course remain just as
important when we will have a common General Chapter. The moral authority of
the Abbot General is very great and manifests itself differently
according to the personality of each Abbot General.
The breadth of scope of his pastoral care is aptly described
in C. 82.1: Because the Abbot
General is a bond of unity within the Order he fosters good relations
among the communities of both monks and nuns and is the watchful
guardian of the Order's patrimony, ensuring its growth. Above
all he is to be a pastor who promotes the spirit of renewal in
communities. He visits the monasteries sufficiently often, as
he judges best, to be aware of the state of the whole Order, and
be able to provide valuable help to individual superiors and communities.
As Dom Gabriel Sortais
told the General Chapter of 1951, which elected him, that pastoral
care can be exercised all the better because the juridical authority
of the Abbot General is very limited[11]. It has nothing in common at that
level with that of the superiors general of centralized religious
congregations. The Abbot
General cannot intervene in the internal administration of the
autonomous communities, and he is not a person whom monks and
nuns can approach to secure permissions denied them by their own
superior. During his regular Visitations, his authority is the
same as that of any other Visitor, as described in the Constitutions
and in the Statute on the Regular Visitation. Moreover, the figure of
the Abbot General as defined in our present law includes quite
a few other pastoral responsibilities.
As canon law does not devote a separate section to monastic
Orders, the latter must fit as best they can into the structures
provided in a general way for centralised Congregations.
And even though our Order carefully avoided describing
itself as a « clerical order » in its Constitutions,
a brief clause was added to C. 82,3 primarily in order to avoid
subordination to the bishops. This clause states that « The
Abbot General is understood
in law (iure intellegitur) as Supreme Moderator of a clerical institute of pontifical right, according to the norm of the Constitutions.»[12] This means that he does not necessarily
have all the powers and rights that universal law may grant to
« Superiors General », but rather those referred to
in our Constitutions. Thus,
to give only one example, he may grant an indult of exclaustration. Since the General Chapters
are no longer held yearly and since life must go on nevertheless,
the Constitutions provided that the Abbot General, either after
obtaining the consent of his Council or after consulting it, may
grant quite a number of authorizations, even though, on account
of their nature, these pertain to the General Chapter.
They are listed in ST 84.1C and 1D. It is the Abbot General
who convenes and presides the General Chapter, while taking into
account the fact that the Chapter is a college and thus operates
collegially. The General Chapter may entrust him with assignments
which he will then carry out as a delegate of the Chapter. As the General Chapter is the sole legislative
authority within the Order, the Abbot General cannot issue
any laws, that is, he could not enact any rules affecting all
the monasteries or all the members of the Order. He has no authority
over the persons and property of the communities; however, if
measures in their regard prove necessary, he may take temporary
measures (and therefore measures that are not irreversible), which
the next Chapter may or may not ratify. At the Chapter of 1892,
the Holy See insisted that the Abbot General must have a Council,
as it does not want any authority in the Church to act in a totally
autonomous fashion without being assisted by advisors.
The Council is not truly a
structure of the Order, but simply what its name implies:
the Abbot General’s Council. The Council in itself has no authority whatsoever.
Its role consists in assisting the Abbot General. The latter must
not only request the consent or advice of his Councillors (of
both genders) regarding the matters provided by the Constitutions,
but may also resort to their assistance for the exercise of all
the aspects of his pastoral office. He may, for instance, delegate them to make
regular Visitations in his name. At the Chapter of 1993,
the idea of having a limited number of « permanent »
councillors in Rome and, simultaneously, a larger number of councillors
who would normally reside in their respective communities, but
could be called to Rome a few times a year, was put forward. This
proposal was not accepted by the General Chapter.
It did, however, accept another proposal, allowing the
Abbot General to appoint « special councillors » under specific
circumstances[13]. This possibility has been used
on various occasions over the last few years. F) The
Central Commission[14] The Central Commission has had a complex and very interesting
history. After creating it for the purpose of preparing the General
Chapter, the Order converted it for some time into a council of
the Abbot General, referring to it as the « principal council »;
the term « permanent council » was then invented to
refer to the councillors residing in Rome, who up until then had
been called « definitors ». That experiment proved far
from conclusive. There
was also in the Order, at the time that its structures were being
revised in view of our new Constitutions, a current aiming at
making that Central Commission (then known as the Consilium
generale) into a kind of mini-chapter, between the plenary
Chapters, with real powers. That
idea never awakened a great deal of interest.
Our present Constitutions therefore reverted to simply
giving the Central Commission the role of preparing the next General
Chapter. Fearing a sort of « takeover » of the Central Commission
by the Regions, the Chapter has always – up to this day – reserved
the right to elect the members of the Central Commissions and
their substitutes, even though it does so upon presentation of
names by the regions. Although the representation of all the regions
is important, the Central Commission truly remains a commission
elected by the General Chapter for
the purpose of preparing the next General Chapter. That is why,
if a region presents its president to the Chapter as a candidate
for the Central Commission and that person is elected by the Chapter,
he will remain the representative of the region on the Central
Commission, even if in the meantime he has been replaced as president. The Central Commissions,
when convened, may also act as the « Plenary Council »
of the Abbot General. This role of the Central Commission, set
forth in a Statute (ST 80.J), is quite secondary compared with
its reason for being as described in Constitution 80, which is
primarily to prepare the General Chapter.
We will come back to this in the second part of this paper.
G) The
Regions[15] The Regions have become an important structure of the
Order, even though for a long time, while their existence was
accepted, it was stressed that they were not a « structure »
of the Order. They began as free, informal and spontaneous meetings
of superiors of both genders in various parts of the Order, first
tolerated and then increasingly encouraged. For a long time, no superior
was under the obligation of taking part in a regional conference.
At the time of the final writing of the Constitutions at the first
MGM, held in The communities
of the Order are grouped in Regions approved by the General Chapter.
These regional conferences foster communion and fraternal co-operation
within each geographical area and in the Order as a whole. A distinction must now
be made between « regions » and « regional conferences ».
Starting from meetings of superiors, we witnessed the birth
of « regions » made up not of superiors but of communities.
These regions are permanent realities. At the rate of once
a year or every three years, according to their geographical situation,
they hold meetings known as « regional conferences »,
which are usually meetings of the superiors of the region with
the participation of community delegates who are not superiors,
in numerical proportions that vary from one region to the next.
As the Order has never ruled on the functioning of the regions,
they were able to develop freely and very differently from one
region to the next. The regional conferences
are, first and foremost, places of pastoral sharing and mutual
support within the region. It
was soon noticed that they are also, especially through their
reports sent to all the houses of the Order, a channel of dialogue
and communion between monks and nuns of all countries and all
cultures (see ST 81.C). The regions came into
being shortly before the Central Commission; but since the membership
of that Central Commission was connected from the very start to
the regional representation of the members, there has always been
a close connection between the existence of those two structures.
Some – myself included – believe that the time has come to rethink
this representative structure.[16] The birth of the regions
also coincided with the period during which we were working intensely
on various drafts of the new Constitutions.
The regions thus played a very important part in the writing
of those Constitutions and thereby in the development within the
Order of a certain common vision of our charism. Today the Central
Commission continues to prepare the next General Chapter on the
basis of the work done by the Regions. Finally, let us mention
– but without developing the point, since they are not structures
of the Order – the existence of sub-regions and of other
informal meetings of superiors (which sometimes include
Carmelites and Benedictines). H) Various commissions We are not dealing here with Commissions of the General
Chapter, whose existence is coextensive with the Chapter, and
which cease to exist as Commissions as soon as the Chapter comes
to an end. Rather, this discussion concerns Commissions
which exist permanently at the service of the other structures
and persons of the Order. a) We might mention the
Law Commission, whose
Statute was revised by the General Chapter of 1993 and whose mandate,
as described in its statute, is to
« to assist the Government of the Order, the local superiors and the other
members of the Order in all matters concerning law. » It may be important to
point out that at each General Chapter there is, according to
the established procedure, a Law Commission of
the Chapter. It consists
of the members of the Law Commission of the Order who are present
at the Chapter, to whom other persons may be added as needed.
It may not be sufficiently noted that, even though this
Law Commission of the Chapter consists of the same members
as the Law Commission of the Order, it is a distinct entity. b) There is also in the
Order a Finance Commission
whose assignment is to manage the Order’s (relatively limited)
funds and to use them to help the communities who may need assistance.[17] It is appointed by the Abbot General. In parallel with this
Finance Commission, the General Chapter of 2002 set up a Commission
which is responsible for analysing the needs and requests of the
communities of the Order.[18] As that same MGM decided to create
a mutual assistance fund within the Order, the management of that
fund and the distribution of aid from that fund were entrusted
to the same commission.[19] c) For a long time the
Order had a Liturgy Commission. It was very
active while the post-conciliar liturgical reform was getting
under way. Its members were elected by the General Chapter, to
which it gave an account of its activities.
The General Chapter of 1977 judged that the work of reform
was advanced enough at the level of the Order and that, since
most of the regions had their own Liturgy Commission, a Central
Secretary for the liturgy would henceforth suffice.[20] The role of that
Secretary was defined rather vaguely[21] and his term of office was not specified. Since the person who was elected (Dom Marie-Gérard
Dubois) and who has held that office from 1977 to this day has
always done so to everyone’s great satisfaction, we may only congratulate
ourselves on that decision. It
remains that when a successor will have to be appointed we will
have to define the office and set the duration of the term. d) The Order has a General Secretary for formation. His or her
role is defined as follows in the Statute
on Formation : « The Central
Secretary's function is to facilitate communication between the
Regions and to ensure the dissemination of relevant information
about all aspects of monastic formation.[22] ». He or she is elected for a term of three years by the two Central Commissions
of abbots and abbesses. e) For a long time, the
Order had an Architectural
commission. Its mandate consisted in reviewing all building
or restoration projects. When
foundations began to multiply in different countries and cultures
outside I) Commissions of Aid for the
Future : A new phenomenon is emerging in the Order, that is, the
multiplication of « Commissions of Aid for the Future ». These are small groups of persons, usually superiors but also other monks or nuns, including
persons from outside the Order, whose purpose is either to assist
a superior in the exercise of his or her pastoral office, or to
help a community as a whole to deal either with a situation of
great frailty or with a special problem of another nature. Since no legislation concerning
them has been enacted by the Order, we cannot speak of a new « structure ».
Nevertheless, their role in relation to some communities
is very useful and their increase in number is a significant phenomenon.
The first of them were created about ten years ago, but
they have multiplied especially since the last General Chapter.
Some of them were created
by the Abbot General, others by the Father Immediate, others still
at the request of one of the Mixed commissions of the last MGM.
Their modes of operation also differ widely.
This great variety is certainly positive. In principle,
these Commissions have no juridical authority and no mandate allowing
them to intervene in the running of the communities.
Moreover, the areas in which they may provide assistance
are many and varied. A question that seems
to have come up more than once in relation to them is the nature
of their interaction with the responsibility of the local superior,
with that of the Father Immediate (who is usually a member) and
with the other existing structures of the Order, such as the Regional
conference, the General Chapter, the Abbot General, etc. It is thus important to
go on now to the second part of this study, which concerns the
(hopefully !) harmonious interaction between all the structures
and other organes of service mentioned thus far. II – Interaction
BETWEEN THE VARIOUS structures of the Order We have reviewed all the
structures of the Order. All
of these structures are at the service of life, that is, of the
concrete life of each monk or nun within their local community.
They have no other reason for being.
We must now examine the interaction of these structures,
the ways in which they can all contribute to spiritual growth.
We cannot, however, avoid considering their possible dysfunction,
in view of the complexity of the whole and of the recent evolution
of several of these structures.
We will see that the time has perhaps come to revise the
nature and operation of some of them. I will use two « parables »
to show the various ways in which this interaction can take place. 1) An ideal situation Let us first imagine an
ideal situation. Let us
think of the way in which all these structures intervene in the
life of Brother Paphnutius, who is an ideal monk in the community
of Our Lady of Perfection, the best community in our Order, without
any doubt, which is part of the Region of High Places. After coming regularly
to the guest house for a number of years and following several
stays inside the community, Onesiphorus finally entered as a postulant. He became a novice under the name of brother
Paphnutius and made his solemn profession a good ten years ago. He is a fulfilled man, happy in his vocation,
who has a good relationship with his abbot and all his brethren. He is very assiduous at manual work, lectio and the Divine Office. Brother Paphnutius receives
all of his spiritual orientation (his « spiritual direction »,
to speak in Ignatian, non-monastic terms) from his community and
from the balance between the various elements of monastic life
which he finds there. The
abbot’s chapters, his homilies and those of the other priests
of the community provide light for his spiritual seeking. From
time to time he consults a senior. He does not see his abbot very often, not in
any case with any mathematical frequency, but he is very open
with him and knows that he can go to see him to speak either of
his spiritual life or of his community relations whenever he feels
the need to do so. He joyfully carries out various tasks in the
community. The quick occasional visits
of the Father Immediate and the Regular Visitations make him aware
of belonging to a reality which is broader than his local community,
that is, to a community of communities called an Order.
He appreciates the way in which the Father Immediate, and
occasionally another Visitor (of either gender) help his community
not to fall asleep on its laurels, or again to identify problems
in time as they begin to surface and to find solutions for them
before they become more serious. The experience of other communities, shared
by these Visitors, helps him and his brethren to periodically
re-evaluate their own way of living the monastic experience. Twice since he entered,
the Abbot General visited his community.
On each of these occasions it was a joy and an encouragement
for him to hear him speak of the
Order, with its graces and problems.
He also remembers that during one of these visits his community
was going through a difficult period which it had trouble dealing
with, and that the advice that the Abbot General was able to give
them thanks to his experience and knowledge of the Order had been
very enlightening. For Paphnutius, the General
Chapter is a faraway reality, but he perceives its importance. He is aware of having contributed somewhat to
the preparation of the last General Chapters through the community
dialogues held prior to the meetings of the Regional Conference.
Moreover, a meeting of the Central Commission which took place
in his monastery allowed him to grasp the magnitude of the efforts
made at the level of all the regions of the Order for the preparation
of a Chapter. Finally,
he remembers that the problem mentioned above, for which the Abbot
General provided good advice, was also mentioned in the report
of the Community to the last General Chapter and that, when his
abbot returned from the General Chapter, he explained to the community
how the attentive and sympathetic study of that situation in the
Mixed Commission that studied their report helped him to get a
clearer view of the various options facing the community. This brief example, perfectly
imaginary though it is, shows quite well how all the structures
of the Order can intervene actively and positively in order to
foster the life of a monk and of his community, without it ever
being necessary for anyone to call on its « authority »
to intervene through its decisions in the life of the community
or of its monks. It is
always a matter of searching for light, in a context of dialogue. In real life, situations
are never as idyllic. Both the life of a monk or nun and that
of his or her community come up sooner or later against situations
that are problematic, and
that may be so in varying degrees. Let us now look at another,
also fictitious example, which will show us how these various
structures can intervene in either a positive or a negative way.
2) A not at all
ideal situation The community of Our Lady
of Distress has experienced considerable difficulties over the
past few years. The community went through quite a long period
without any vocations and then once more received a goodly number
of them a few years ago. As a result, it presently consists of a block
of seniors and of a block of relatively young monks. There are tensions between these two blocks.
In fact, within each group opinions often differ each time
something « new » is put before the community.
The abbot, who for a long time had been able to maintain
unity and harmony in the community, no longer knows how to handle
the present situation. In
addition to this, rather strong tensions have developed between
him and some of his main assistants, particularly the prior and
especially the novice master, who is attempting to form « his »
novices according to a conception of monastic life which is not
that of the abbot. Some monks then call on
the Father Immediate to come and correct the situation. They are doubtless right to call on him, since
the situation would not have deteriorated to such a point if he
had intervened earlier. The
Father Immediate now realizes that when he perceived that a serious
problem was developing he chose to stay out of it and not to get
involved. That was a serious mistake on his part. The situation had in fact been mentioned to
him at the last Regular Visitation, but he had preferred not to
refer to it in the Visitation Card to avoid discouraging the community. He had touched a word of it to the abbot, but
as the latter was rather defensive he had not insisted in order
to avoid harming their relationship.
Afterwards everything had grown worse. He is thus coming to make
a further Regular Visitation, even though he made one the previous
year, and he explains to the community, which is rather surprised
at this fresh Visitation, that there is nothing abnormal about
this, since the Constitutions require that there be a Regular
Visitation at least once
every two years, which implies that the frequency can be greater.
During the Visitation he is asked to make many changes
himself in the running of the community. He is forced to explain that he is the Visitor
and not the superior of the community and that his role is not
to solve the problems, but to help the community to do so together
with its abbot. It is suggested to him that he change the prior
and the novice master. He
answers that he has no authority to do so.
At the very most, he could remove this or that officer,
if there was a serious reason for doing so, but it would not be
up to him to appoint their replacements.
He knows that it is preferable to convince the abbot to
make these changes immediately after the Visitation, if it has
not succeeded in bringing the two persons concerned to modify
their attitude. During
the Visitation, it is suggested that he convene the Council of
the community. He answers that he is willing to conduct dialogues
with the « members of the council », but that as the
council is the « abbot’s council » the latter alone may convene
it. Once this clarification has been made, a few
meetings with the abbot
and his council help to clarify quite a few things and to
see ways to the solution of various problems. Tired of this rather burdensome
community situation, a monk, doubtless a true man of God, had
suddenly discovered that he had an eremitical vocation and had
asked the abbot for permission to go off and live as a hermit
in a very isolated spot far from the monastery.
The father abbot, after hearing his request and discussing
the matter with his council, had denied him permission, judging
that he was dealing with a temptation of escape. The monk therefore wrote to the Father Immediate
to ask him for the permission denied by his abbot. The Father Immediate answered that he did not
have the necessary authority to grant him such permission and
that he would have to resolve the matter with his abbot.
Our aspiring hermit, convinced
of his vocation, then wrote the Abbot General asking for his permission
to live as a hermit, taking care to specify that he was doing
so on the basis of ST 77.2.B which allowed him to « have
recourse » to the Abbot General. In his answer, the latter
first explained the difference between « appeal » and
« recourse » (an appeal being a request to a higher
court to reverse the judgment given by a court of first instance). Our Constitutions do not refer to a right of
appeal, but to a right of recourse. The use of this right confers
on the person to whom recourse is made an obligation of taking
care of the matter and, if necessary, after making all the necessary
inquiries, of asking the person who made the decision to be so
good as to revise it. In this case, the fact that the monk called
on the Abbot General conferred on the latter the duty of examining
the situation and, if he judged that the decision made was not
justified, of asking the abbot to reconsider his decision. It
did not entitle him to intervene in the abbot’s place by giving
the permission that the latter had refused. Some time later the Regional
conference took place, and the abbot took advantage of it to explain
to the other superiors, in the course of a pastoral exchange,
the situation that he and his community were experiencing. Their
advice and reactions were a great help to him personally, and
indeed the interventions of the Father Immediate – which had unfortunately
been belated -- had helped pacify the situation, but the basic
problem remained unchanged. A few monks then decided to have recourse to
the Abbot General in order to have him come to make a special
Visitation. The Abbot General contacted the Father Immediate
to make sure that the latter had done all he could do. He even recommended that the Father Immediate
make a further Visitation and gave him all sorts of advice as
to the way of proceeding. He
would be able to make a Visitation himself later if needed. In the meantime, the time
for the General Chapter arrived.
The community, in its house report, had given an honest
description of its situation.
In the Mixed Commission that studied that report, the Father
Immediate was asked to come in order to give his opinion, and
other abbots and abbesses who knew the community well were also
consulted. A few younger
and more fiery members of the Commission, conscious as they were
of their responsibility of acting on behalf of the entire General
Chapter, were inclined to force the abbot to resign, since the
situation seemed to be increasingly beyond him.
A member of the Commission, who was a good canonist, explained
to them that one can never force someone to resign.
A resignation is, by its very nature, a free act (even
though it may not necessarily be spontaneous). Even the General Chapter does not have the authority
to force someone to resign. In
very serious cases it could depose
someone, but that is a very rare thing which can happen only when
there is scandal or very serious causes.
If it is judged that a resignation would be indicated for
the good of the community, there are many ways of pastorally bringing
someone to make that decision serenely at the right time. In the situation we are
discussing, the abbot realized that the time seemed to have come
to pass on the pastoral office to a successor, but he did not
want to do so abruptly. He asked for time. The Mixed Commission recommended the creation
of a Commission of Aid to assist both the Father Immediate and
the abbot in managing that delicate transition. A Commission of Aid was
in fact set up. It assigned
itself the task of being a kind of external « council »
with a threefold assignment : a) making the entire
community aware of the responsibility of each person and
of its collective responsibility in searching for a way to evolve; b) helping the abbot to continue to exercise
his pastoral office fully while preparing his resignation; c)
helping the Father Immediate to manifest his pastoral care more
actively than he had done in the past, both toward the abbot and
toward the community. Everything developed in the direction of greater
serenity. Six months later
the abbot handed in his resignation, which was experienced without
any trauma, whether on his part or on that of the community.
A very capable successor, who had had nothing to do with
the tensions of the past few years, was easily elected.
Aware as he was that by accepting his election he was assuming
the pastoral care of all the members of his community, including
his predecessor, he asked the latter to remain in the monastery
after taking a brief time of rest. He did so. The
community recovered its full serenity and was the stronger for
having gone through a difficult period with the respectful, coordinated
help of all the pastoral instances of the Order, each of which
carefully avoided going beyond its powers and short-circuiting
the others. 3) Lessons to be derived from these two examples The first principle I
have attempted to express in these two parables is that of respect
for subsidiarity. Pastoral
care is expressed through constant and respectful attention and
through a daily readiness to encourage, support, advise and sometimes
warn and criticise if need be. This pastoral care is always required at all
levels, even when things are or seem to be for the best in a community,
without any problems,. When problems or difficult
situations do come up, a healthy community is normally able to
deal with them and to overcome them on its own, especially if
it benefits from the pastoral care of its Father Immediate.
If it cannot, or if, more serious still, it is blind to
the problem, the Father Immediate is the first person who should
do everything possible to improve the situation.
If he does not succeed in doing so, he may ask the Abbot
General to contribute his charism and skills; but he must resist
the temptation of being too quick to ask the Abbot General to
assume a responsibility which belongs first and foremost to the
Father Immediate. Such
a reaction on his part may be due either to laziness or to lack
of self-confidence, unless it is due to ignorance as to his responsibilities.
Likewise, the members of the community, who believe that the situation
is beyond their Abbot’s ability to deal with it, must call first
of all on the Father Immediate before having recourse to the Abbot
General. When the Central Commissions,
meeting in Latrun in 1998, decided to suggest to the General Chapters
that the Pastoral Commission be abolished, the idea was that to
the extent that the Fathers Immediate would do their job and that
the Regions, not being as busy as before analysing legal texts,
would be able to devote more time and energy to mutual help of
a pastoral nature, far fewer problematic situations would come
as far as the General Chapter.
Perhaps we were too optimistic at the time, or perhaps
the Mixed Commissions singled out too many situations as requiring
special treatment. Of all the entities involved,
it is doubtless the Commission of Aid whose role presently requires
special attention. Some of them have shown themselves to be very
useful. But as they came into being in very different ways and
also operate very differently from one another, their relationship
with the other pastoral organisms of the Order is not always clear.
Some clarifications are no doubt called for in this respect, although
it is not yet advisable to write a « Statute » for them. The important
point is that, whether the creation or the operation of these
Commissions is involved, all must be aware that they are called
upon to support, encourage and sometimes enlighten the pastoral
efforts of the abbot and of the Father Immediate, and not to substitute
for either of them. It must also be quite clear that we are dealing
with a service which is offered and that no one, not even the
General Chapter (and even less a mere Commission of the CG) can
impose it. d) Preparation and running of the General Chapters It is doubtless in connection with the preparation of
the General Chapters that the largest number of new structures
of the Order come into play, besides the older structures, and
that greater attention is needed in order to ensure their coordination. The idea underlying all
the reforms of the central structures of the Order during the
last forty years was that the General Chapter is essentially an
organ of communion rather than control[24]. The entire mechanism set up consists
in promoting feedback from the local communities to the General
Chapter as regards the life of those communities. The local communities
are all invited to prepare a house report in view of the next
Chapter. Often they are also invited by the General Chapter
to reflect on this or that point to be dealt with at the next
Chapter. The regional conferences
gather echoes of the lived experience of the communities and make
a certain number of proposals which will then be studied by the
Central Commissions. Even though there may not be any legislation
concerning the matter, for a long time now the custom has been
that the Central Commissions place on the agenda of the General
Chapter any suggestion made even by a single region, if
it has been passed by a
majority vote. The mandate of the Central
Commissions is to prepare the agenda of the General Chapter on
the basis of the work done by the regions.
The contribution of all the regions is already guaranteed
by the very fact that the agenda is prepared on the basis of their
work. The continued insistence on having all the regions represented
within the Central Commission is really not justified.
This insistence leads to the Central Commissions’ being
too large a body to do a really efficient job in only a few days.
(The number will be smaller if we have a single Chapter, but it
will still be too large.) Indeed, the Central Commissions are a study
group, whose assignment is to finalize an agenda, and not a decisional
body. A limited group of persons, chosen for their skills and
representing various parts of the Order, could do the job more
quickly and especially more efficiently than a group of forty
people. This is connected with the question raised earlier concerning
the relationship between the Central Commissions and the Regional
Conferences[25]. It is true that the Central
Commissions, when they are in session, can act as the plenary
Council of the Abbot General.
But that is a secondary role, which is by no means necessary,
since experience has shown that they deal in that capacity only
with a few matters which the Abbot General usually handles with
his Council. But it is especially regarding
what we experience during the General Chapter that some very important
and urgent thinking would be needed in order to ensure better
coordination between the General Chapter and the other pastoral
instances of the Order. An important point to be taken into consideration
is that none of the instances we have discussed exists as such
within the Chapter. In order
to make myself clear, let me relate a very illuminating explanation
given to me by Father Jesús Torres, then under-secretary of the
Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, when I asked
him a question on a point of detail connected with the running
of the Chapter. « At
the General Chapter », he said, « there are only Capitulants
– a In that light, we may
make the following remarks. Understandably
enough, at certain times during the Chapter the « members
belonging to the various regional
conferences » may be asked for their opinion; but entrusting
a job « to the regional conferences » as
such does not make any sense, legally speaking, since the Regional
conferences do not exist within
the Chapter. Likewise, we may understand that at certain
times the Capitulants who are members of the Council of the Abbot
General may be believed to be just the right people to deal with
this or that matter thanks to their knowledge of the Order, and
that they be invited to do so. But to entrust a role within the Chapter to
the « Abbot General’s Council » makes no legal sense, since
that Council is not a structure of the capitular college. The work of the General
Chapter is now well-oiled. A
procedure set up in 1971 and constantly revised since according
to new circumstances, Chapter after Chapter, guides its work.
Several Commissions exist, in addition to the many ad hoc commissions created in view of specific needs. They are all commissions of the Chapter, which no longer exist as such once the Chapter is
ended. Especially, there
is the Coordinating Commission and the 15 Mixed Commissions, to
which the Pastoral Commission used to be added.
We may also mention the Law Commission of the Chapter,
whose membership was explained above.
Until the last Chapter, no decision was considered to be
a decision of the Chapter unless passed by a vote of the plenary
Assembly, even if the entire study prior to that decision had
been carried out by a Commission or an ad
hoc group. At the last
Chapter, we departed from this centuries-old wisdom.
I will explain below the problems this raises. A delicate question that
cannot be evaded is the fact that some Capitulants call very frequently
on the Abbot General, during the Chapter, to
have him solve problems either in their communities or
between them and their Father Immediate or another abbot.
It is of course perfectly normal and legitimate for superiors
who are not usually able to meet with the Abbot General outside
of the General Chapter to wish to do so at that time.
It is doubtless just as normal for the Abbot General to
call on a few Capitulants and even to create a small commission
to find a solution to a complex situation.
But if decisions are then arrived at, and especially if
those decisions are not communicated to the plenary Assembly,
we may wonder whether we are not dealing with decisions that should
be considered extra-capitular
even though they were taken during the Chapter, while rejoicing
in their results. The Chapter is doubtless
also the occasion for quite a number of extra-capitular activities
– not to mention those deep pastoral dialogues at the corner bar. The important point is to distinguish carefully
between activities of the
Chapter, for which the latter assumes full responsibility, and
activities – which may be necessary and very useful – carried
out during the Chapter. However, a point which
requires an even more attentive study is the activity of the Mixed
Commissions (and of the many sub-commissions and special commissions
created by them) and the coordination of their work with the various
structures of the Order. There is the matter of coordination during the
Chapter; but, more important still, if they make decisions that
affect the life of the communities after the Chapter, there is
the question of coordination with the responsibility of the Father
Immediate and possibly with the pastoral attention which a region
may have brought to a situation for a number of years. Excursus : The Power of deci According to the Charter
of Charity, the abbots of the daughter houses of Cîteaux met to
speak of the salvation of their souls and occasionally also to
assist one another with their temporal needs.
The main concern was essentially pastoral in nature.
As soon as the Order began to spread and each of the filiations
developed its own spirit, concern for the unity of the Order manifested
itself more strongly. Since
uniformity of observance was long considered to be the best way
of maintaining the unity of the Order, the General Chapters were
soon called upon to legislate in matters of observance.
As a result, their Acta gave the impression of an increasingly
juridical orientation. However,
we may believe that pastoral concern for the spiritual and material
good of the communities remained very much alive for a long time,
even though it was not the subject of « decisions »
destined to appear in the Acta. a) a brief historical overview of
the pastoral dimension of the Chapter
Up to the time of the post-conciliar (post-Vatican II)
reform, the essential part of each General Chapter was the reading
of the Visitation Cards written by the Fathers Immediate. Beginning in 1977,
that reading was replaced by that of the «House reports » drawn
up by the Communities themselves (with some intervention on the
part of the Father Immediate).
In both cases, the concern was a pastoral one.
As early as the end of the 1960s, when the General Chapters
were reflecting on the identity of the General Chapter, there
was a widespread desire to go from a
notion of the General Chapter viewed as an « organ
of control » (that is how the reading of the Visitation Cards
was sometimes understood) to a notion of the Chapter viewed as
an « organ of communion » (this is the purpose that
the house reports aimed at serving). Beginning in 1969, the
Order was increasingly involved, both at the level of the General
Chapter and at that of the regions (only just born) in the revision
of the Order’s Constitutions and juridical structures.
In particular, all the length and breadth of the thorny
questions of « collegiality » and of the relationship
between the two « branches » of the Order had to be
dealt with at the Chapter. At a certain number of Chapters, in fact, only
a limited number of Visitation Cards were read. Some complained that the Chapters had become
too « juridical » and no longer « pastoral »
enough, even though others answered – rightly so, to my mind,
since I was one of them... -- that putting together good legislation
is also a highly pastoral job. Be that as it may, once
the work on the Constitutions came to an end at the (first) Mixed
General Meeting in 1987 and they were published by the Holy See
at Pentecost of 1990, the occasion of reviewing the dynamics of
the General Chapters arose. From then on, even though a few important « Statutes »
remained to be finalized (Formation, 1990; Law Commission, 1993;
Regular Visitation, 1996; Temporal Administration, 1999) the General
Chapters’ legislative activity properly so called became more
limited and they could go back to reading all of the House Reports. This was decided by the MGM of 1990 (vote 48). All believed that, in
any case, this would give the Chapter a more « pastoral »
atmosphere (even though it is probable that everyone did not give
that word the same meaning). Several regions hesitated,
however, at the idea of having to listen to over 150 reports in
plenary session. As a result,
the Central Commissions, meeting at Gethsemani in 1992, suggested
a new procedure which was accepted by the MGM of 1993 and which
has remained our practice ever since: all the reports are read
at the MGM... but they are distributed between the Mixed Commissions
instead of being read in plenary session. The MGM of 1993 not only
accepted that proposal, but by its vote nº 97 it decided that
the same procedure would be used at the following meeting. As a result, the Central Commissions of 1995,
meeting at Orval, developed a detailed procedure for dealing with
the house reports, under the title « Pastoral treatment of the house reports ». That procedure, with some
slight adaptations decided by the CC meeting at Latrun in 1998,
by the meeting at La Trappe in 2001 and the one at Scourmont in
2004, is still in effect. As there had been some
dissatisfaction with the functioning of the two joint Pastoral
Commissions at the 1996 MGM, at the CC meeting held at Latrun
in 1998 it was suggested that those two Pastoral Commissions be
done away with and that the Mixed Commissions be allowed to deal
with all the questions, even those which, on account of their
confidential or complex nature, had until then been entrusted
to the Pastoral Commission of each of the two General
Chapters. A special Mixed
Commission, i.e. Commission 15 (made up of the members elected
to the Pastoral Commissions at the previous MGM), to
which the most difficult cases would be entrusted, was, however,
maintained. After the 1999 MGM, the
Pastoral Commissions (temporarily renamed « Commission 15 »)
ceased to exist. The CC
meeting at La Trappe in 2003 once more adapted the procedure for
the « Pastoral treatment of the house reports », clarifying in particular
the way in which the most difficult situations requiring a decision
by the General Chapters would go back up to the Plenary Assembly.
Until then, the members of the various Mixed Commissions
were quite convinced that they were exercising a highly pastoral role. Each Commission could dwell
more at length on the situation of each of those communities,
learning from the experience lived by each of them, bringing in
the superior and in some cases also the Father Immediate in order
to hear them so as to get a better grasp of the situation of each
house. When difficulties or problems existed, the Commission’s
pastoral activity could usually be limited to advice and recommendations.
Provision was made for cases in which certain measures
which might seem important or essential to the Mixed Commission
would not be accepted by the local superior or by the Father Immediate.
In such cases, the matter had to be referred for decision
to the General Assembly, in accordance with this or that procedure.
It was taken for granted until then that a « decision »
in the strict sense of the term could be taken only by the General
Chapter (either of abbots or abbesses, as the case might be).
That is how the « Pastoral Commission » had operated.
The cases in which a « decision » had to be taken
by the General Assembly remained, as always in the past, relatively
rare. And then, between the
General Chapter of 2003 and that of 2005, some regions expressed
the wish to give the Mixed Commissions the power to make decisions concerning the communities « in the name of the General
Chapter », without having to refer the matter to the Plenary
Assembly of the MGM or of the Chapters involved – a power which
the Pastoral Commission, whose job they had henceforth taken over,
had not had. Before going further,
let us briefly consider the operation of the Pastoral Commission
-- whose history, however, we will not retrace here – in order
to see what portion of its legacy was passed on to the Mixed Commissions. b) The Pastoral Commission The Pastoral Commission (which had previously gone by
various other names reflecting the mentality of each period) was
a special commission of each of the two General Chapters, to which
was entrusted the study of situations which were either especially
difficult or required greater confidentiality.
Its members were elected at the end of each General Chapter
for the next Chapter (the method of election was slightly different
in the case of the nuns), with a certain representation of the
regions. The commission, made up of persons elected on account
of their experience and knowledge of the Order, often worked late
into the night during most of the Chapter.
Some of the presidents of the Commission left their mark
on it (Dom Alexandre of Désert and later Dom John Eudes of At a certain Chapter,
the Commission felt that it was not morally authorised to disclose
all the details of certain situations, whereas some Capitulants
felt that they had to be acquainted with those details in order
to take an enlightened decision. It was then decided that if such cases were
to occur again, the Commission, instead of asking the Capitulants
to vote on a situation whereas they were not acquainted with essential
elements of it, would be able to make the decision in the name
of the General Chapter by delegation from the latter.
It does not seem that this was ever done. Moreover, the Statute
of that Commission was in hand for several years. It seemed essential to the president of the
time that the Commission be able to begin its work before the
Chapter (in order to gather the necessary information) and pursue
it after the General Chapter.
But the General Chapter always rejected that request.
The capitulants held that the Commission must remain a
commission « of the Chapter », with no existence either
before the Chapter was in session or after it was closed. At the last General Chapter,
it was decided that the Mixed Commissions – which had taken over
the work of the former Pastoral Commissions -- would not simply
be empowered to study situations and to dialogue with the superior
and the other persons concerned, but would even be entitled to
make decisions « in the name of the Chapter » without
a vote of the full Chapter being required. It seems that a majority of the Capitulants
appreciated this situation. I personally continue to believe that
it was a mistake, and for several reasons. First of all, when some
superiors rejoiced at being able to finally exercise a « pastoral
role » at the General Chapter, the impression given was that,
in their view, « being pastoral » consisted in « making
decisions » about other people.
In fact, having participated personally in all the General
Chapters during which the evolution I have just described took
place and having taken part in all the Central Commissions at
which this new « legislation » was prepared[26], I remain convinced that our General Chapters have not
become more « pastoral » for it.
Quite the contrary, it seems to me that the frenzy with
which one special commission after another was created by the
Mixed Commissions in order to seek solutions to complex situations
of which the members of those commissions had hardly any knowledge,
and which they did not have time to study, created an activist
atmosphere which was definitely less « pastoral » than
at the previous Chapters, where the Mixed Commissions made a pastoral
study of all those same situations without having to worry about
making decisions themselves, as a group of six or seven people
and in the name of the entire Order -- decisions destined to have
serious consequences for the lives of communities and persons. A more detailed analysis
of the work of those Commissions at the last General Chapter is
required, but this is not the place for it.
A certain number of mistakes were made on account of the
pastoral frenzy of some commissions, and these may be termed youthful
indiscretions which can be readily corrected.
But there are some fundamental problems involved. Upon re-reading Vote 8
of the meeting of the Central Commissions held in 2004 at Scourmont,
which was confirmed by the MGM of 2005 and implemented by it,
I am struck by its inconsistency. Here is the text of Vote 8: « We
wish that the Mixed Commissions have, by delegation, the authority
of the General Chapters, when they study the House Reports, in
order to suggest or decide what should be done pastorally, and
to require the putting into effect of their decisions, except
when there is question of rights reserved to the General Chapters
(cf. C. 79). » First of all, it is strange to speak of « rights
reserved to the General Chapters », for C. 79 does not refer
to rights at all, but rather defines the legal
competence of the General
Chapters. They have no
powers besides those explicitly mentioned in that Constitution
79. Now, that Vote 8 of the Central Commission meeting
at Scourmont (ratified by the MGM of 2005) says that the General
Chapters delegate all their powers except those mentioned in that
Constitution to the Mixed Commissions! Since the General Chapters
have no powers other than those mentioned in C. 79, they are thus
delegating powers they do not have to the Mixed Commissions. This amounts to squaring the circle. A second fundamental problem,
at least for the General Chapters of 2005 (but which might very
well surface again if the winds from Rome do not bring better
tidings), is that Commissions made up of Capitulants from both
Chapters took decisions pertaining solely either to the Chapter
of abbesses or to the Chapter of abbots, as the case may be.
Are those decisions valid? A third fundamental problem
is that, at the last General Chapters, decisions were made in
the name of all the Capitulants without their receiving a written
report describing the number, nature and scope of the decisions
taken in their name. All the Capitulants
were certainly strictly entitled to such communication. Any person who has received delegated powers
is under an obligation of giving an account of his stewardship to the person (whether an individual
or entity) who gave the delegation. A certain number of problems
that came up in practice at the last MGM could, I agree, be readily
corrected. However, a few
of them should at least be mentioned. a) Vote 9 of the CC of Scourmont provides a possibility
of recourse: « If not
in agreement with the decision of a Mixed Commission, those concerned
may have recourse to the Plenary Assembly, which will decide the
procedure to be followed.».
Now, the fact is that some superiors were informed of decisions concerning
them after the Chapter was closed. b) A number of decisions
(v.g. the choice of the special Visitor to be sent to this or
that community) were taken during the days following the closing
of the MGM. Are those decisions valid?
In fact, the Mixed Commissions cease to exist once the
Chapter is closed. c) Many superiors were
mandated as « special visitors », but their mandate was not
always clearly specified. Failing
a very explicit decision of the General Chapter (by delegation!),
no Visitor, however special, has any authority besides that conferred
on all Visitors by the Statute on Foundations.
Can a Visitor, even though delegated by the General Chapter,
assume in practice the role of the Father Immediate? d) When the reading of
the house reports by the Mixed Commissions was introduced, it
was considered normal to have the superior of the house concerned
come to the commission when the report was read, and also, if
need be, the Father Immediate. It was realised that this would disturb the
working of the Commissions somewhat, since someone would always
be absent or in the hallways on his or her way from one commission
to the next. But that seemed acceptable, and in fact things worked quite well at several Chapters
At the last Chapter, the need experienced by some Commissions
to arrive at a « decision » concerning situations that
no member of the Commission was really acquainted with led them
to create sub-commissions and later special commissions calling
on people from other commissions.
This occasioned a rather disturbing back-and-forth movement.
e) Finally, the whole
problem of follow-up remains.
The mandate given to the special Visitor should at least
specify who he should report to and who is to intervene if his
Visitation does not yield any results.
And here is another question, which is not without importance:
who pays for all the travel involved? One thing is certain:
if at the next General Chapters (or at the next General Chapter,
Vaticano volente) the same power is conferred
once more upon the Mixed Commissions, many clarifications will
have to be made as regards the exercise of that power. Conclusion Just as each community of our Order is constituted by
the bonds of charity uniting the brothers or sisters, likewise
our Order is constituted by a vast network of structures and services
whose purpose is to maintain communion between the communities
and to allow each monk and each nun to live a deep relationship
with God. Within his community,
the monk can count on the support and example of community life,
as well as on the pastoral attention of his abbot, who will take
care to cause himself to be assisted by various officers, both
in the spiritual and in the material areas. When they accept their office, all the superiors of the
Order assume a collegial pastoral responsibility for the entire
Order. They exercise it mainly through their participation
in the General Chapter, through the relationship of filiation
between the communities and the role of the Father Immediate,
as well as through the Regular Visitations and the meetings of
superiors within the framework of the regional conferences.
Both at those regional conferences and at the General Chapter,
they cause themselves to be assisted by a few delegates from their
communities in the exercise of their pastoral responsibility. In an ideal situation,
this pastoral attention can be exercised without the exercise
of the powers attached to certain responsibilities.
When, under special or difficult circumstances, the exercise
of canonical authority is required, it is of the utmost importance,
in order to maintain charity and bear spiritual fruit, that each
person involved be aware of the scope of his or her responsibilities
and of the limits of his or her authority and exercise the latter
with full respect for the authority of all the other persons or
entities intervening. It
is that scope and those limits which we have attempted to specify
throughout the above pages. Both the autonomy of the
local community and the supreme power of the General Chapter must
be scrupulously respected. Any
pastoral intervention between those two poles must respect the
principle of subsidiarity. Higher
authority must help the authority over which it has a duty of
vigilance to exercise its own pastoral responsibility properly
rather than substituting for it. Whoever holds pastoral
responsibility within the Order, at whatever level, must take
care to acquire a clear notion of the scope of his or her responsibility
and of the limits of his or her authority. He or she must also be well acquainted with
all the canonical rules governing the exercise of that authority,
which are, generally speaking, the fruit of centuries of experience
and wisdom. Experience shows that whenever, in the name
of broad-mindedness or of alleged personal pastoral wisdom, some
of those rules are neglected or not implemented, the rights of
other persons are violated. The precarious situation
of certain persons within the local community or of certain communities
within the Order requires not that others arrogate themselves
the responsibility of making the decisions that concern them in
their place, but rather that they be helped, with a great deal
of attention and very tactfully, to take their own decisions.
From this point of view,
some recent structures, born of life but not yet well broken in,
will require special attention during the coming years. We will have to see to it that the Commission
of Aid always work in harmony with the Father Immediate and the
local superior, with full respect for the responsibilities of
the conventual Chapter and even of the legitimate « susceptibility »
of the members of the community.
As for the Mixed Commissions of the General Chapter, if
we persist in conferring on them the delegated power to act in
the name of the entire Chapter, they will also have to restrain
their pastoral frenzy and be more aware than in the past that
the quality and success of a pastoral intervention are usually
evidenced by the fact that, in order to bear fruit, it does not
require any exercise of power, nor even – in most cases -- any
decision-making. Scourmont, Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 2006
[1] The
text of the Declaration may be found on the Internet :
http://users.skynet.be/scourmont/cg1969/decl-v-cist-69-eng.htm. [2] “Gathered
by the call of God, the brothers constitute a monastic church
or community that is the fundamental unit of the Order.” (C.5). [3] See what a good historian of religious
life, Eutimio SASTRE SANTOS, has to say about this : “Quando nel
1119 Stefano Harding riceve da Callisto II la conferma dei primi
statuti, ci sono cinque monasteri in più, situati in diocesi
diverse... Stefano Harding – oppure Alberico come vuole l’Exordium
parvum – deve affrontare e risolvere il problema giuridico che
bloccava il vecchio monachesimo: come conservare l’autonomia dei monasteri e
assicurare l’unione delle osservanze nel momento di uno strepitoso
successo. La soluzione
escogitata mantiene il principio del diritto antico di conservare
l’autonomia di ogni monastero;
perciò ad agni abate et alla sua badia viene riconosciuta
un’autonomia amministrativa e financiaria.
Però lo stesso abate e la stessa badia devono sottostare
alla suprema autorità legislativa e giudiziale, che non è di
tipo fisico, ma giuridico: il capitolo generale. Tale capitolo, radunato ogni anno a Cîteaux,
il 14 settembre, sotto la presidenza dell’abate della stessa
badia, corregge gli abusi, punisce i colpevoli, modifica le
leggi. A vegliare sull’osservanza dei monasteri provvedono
le visite che devono allacciare i legami spirituali tra i monasteri
autonomi... Vige così tra i monasteri autonomi il sistema di
filiazione... La Carta
Caritatis cioè la constitutio del novum monasterium ... ha gettato
le basi per risolvere la questione giuridica di come collegare
tra loro i monasteri... Una diversa
institutio distingue il vecchio dal nuovo monachesimo. A Cîteaux, a differenza dell’unico abate di Cluny,
si mette in piedi un capitolo generale: la suprema autorità
non è una persona fisica, ma una persona giuridica: un
collegium. Gli instituta
dei capitoli e la vigilanza attuata con le visite, suddivise
tra quattro abati, permettono di mantenere l’osservanza... Tuttavia,
le “novità” del capitolo e delle visite non sopprimono la vecchia
autonomia dei monasteri. In realtà l’ordo
Cistercii è costituito da una federazione di monasteri
uguali e autonomi sotto la suprema autorità di una persona giuridica:
il capitolo. Però, la suprema autorità personale di Cluny, del
vecchio monachesimo, è stata spodestata” -- Eutimio SASTRE SANTOS,
La vita religiosa nella storia della Chiesa e della società,
Ancora, Milano, 1997 pp. 319-320. [4] It should
be noted that it is the election
that is confirmed, not the person
elected (electio confirmatur). (See C. 39,6). [5] For a long time, the superior ad nutum, in our Order, was considered
to be a mere delegate
of the Father Immediate, which was an anomaly, since, according
to universal law, all superiors of autonomous houses are major
superiors endowed with ordinary powers.
This anomaly was corrected at the General Chapters held in 2002 (vote 34). [6] Father
Jesús Torres, the former under-secretary of the Congregation
for Institutes of Consecrated Life, who is an excellent canonist,
explained to me one day, in his clear and vivid language, that
the authority of our General Chapter is made up of the parcels
of authority delegated to it by the autonomous
communities which make up our Order. [7] “ Even if the Visitation is done by
the Father Immediate, the superior
keeps his ordinary power in the monastery during the Visitation.”
(Statute of the
Regular Visitation, nº 18. [8] Ibidem. [9] According
to the Statute on the
Regular Visitation, nº 22, he may, in exceptional cases
and after consulting the superior, remove a person in charge
or an officer. He is not, however, authorised to appoint his
or her replacement. [10] I wrote
a rather detailed paper on the history of the Abbot General’s
role in our Order for the 2006 meeting of the CNE (Central and
[11] See the Minutes, 1951, pp. 36-39. [12]
Abbas
Generalis iure intellegitur supremus Moderator instituti clericalis
iuris pontificii, ad normam Constitutionum. [13] See votes 44, 45 and 60 of that General
Chapter. The possibility of special Councillors was added to our
Constitutions as Statute 84,1,J. [14] I have
made a rather detailed study of the origin and development of
the Central Commission. See
“Histoire de la Commission Centrale”, dans Un bonheur partagé – Mélanges offerts à Dom Marie-Gérard Dubois. (Cahiers
Scourmontois – 5), Scourmont 2005, pages 213-236. The same text may be found on the Internet at the following
address: http://users.skynet.be/bs775533/Armand/wri/comm-centrale.htm.
[15] I wrote
a paper on the origins and evolution of the Regions for the
CNE Regional conference held
in June 2003. The text may be found in the Minutes of the meeting,
as well as on the Internet at the following address: http://users.skynet.be/bs775533/Armand/wri/regions.htm [16] I have
explained my position more fully in my article on the Central
Commission referred to in note 9. [17] “The
Abbot General appoints a monk of the Order to be responsible
for the ordinary administration of the Order.
He also appoints a finance commission to administer the
capital of the Order. This commission will provide the General Chapter
with its annual reports.” (Statute
on Temporal Administration, nº 33,b) [18] Minutes,
Votes 23, 24 and 26. [19] Minutes,
vote 28 to 31. We may add that communities sometimes entrust
the Abbot General with sums of money which he may use to assist
monasteries which present requests to him. [20] Minutes, page 265. [21] “Le General Chapter nommera un Secrétaire
central qui prendra soin des questions de liturgie qui se présenteront
at the level of the Order” (Ibidem) [22] Document
on Formation, nº 70. [23] The General
Chapter of 1967 passed a new statute for this commission. See Annex VI of the Minutes, p. 169-170.
I do not know at what date it ceased to exist. A cursory
consultation of the minutes of the General Chapters did not
allow me to discover whether it was abolished or died a natural
death. [24] I wrote a working document in this respect
in preparation for the General Chapter of 1971, under the title “For a prophetic General Chapter”. The text
may be found on the Internet: http://www.citeaux.net/wri-av/gen-chap-char_fra.htm.
[25] I dealt with this matter in my article
on the Central Commission referred to above. [26] I was
a member of each of the “ad hoc” Commissions which, during the
successive Central Commission meetings, prepared and revised
the document entitled “Pastoral treatment of the house reports”
– with Dom Eduardo of Azul and Mother Anne of Ubexy at Orval
in 1995; with Dom Yvon of Oka and Mother Benedict of Berkel
in Latrun in 1998; with Mother Benedict of Berkel and Dom Damian
of Spencer at La Trappe in 2001. |
|
||