New Equalities: Monks/Nuns - Monks/Priests

After months of wondering why I had been asked to go half way round the world to speak on this topic, I was assured that it was simply to stimulate thought and discussion. That made my task easier because if everything I say is wrong, it may at least help others find something better.

What is meant by >New Equalities=? I looked up the word >equal= in my Webster=s Dictionary and found the meanings listed: level, even; of same rank, ability, merit; as great as another. I do not have much interest in bringing things to the least common denominator, which is often what happens when we talk of equality. Somehow or other the word implies higher ups and lower downs, steps and ladders, demands of rights and powers. Maybe what bothers me is just the socio-political context in which we often hear the word "equality" being used. Sometimes it implies an illusory desire to eliminate differences because if we were all equal, all our problems would be solved. Are we seeking new equalities of sameness? I think not. On the contrary, we have been increasingly open to variety. Perhaps >New Equalities= is about sameness in the sense of getting rid of class and gender discrimination that impose differences where there are none. Maybe "New Equalities" is based on new ways of seeing and dealing with differences.

The Rule of St Benedict which we follow, has no interest in solving problems through a leveling kind of equality. Human worth is not based on sameness; it is attributed to all. Differences are respected and given attention, especially differences of weakness, and any jealousy that might result must be faced for what it is: selfishness that can only be healed through experiencing it, naming it, repenting of it and growing in new humility. Human justice may be based on the theory of equality, which is often more theory than practice. But divine respect for persons is based on respect for difference and uniqueness, on gifts given to each for the common good. It is based on mercy. The inclination of human ambition which seeks to be equal, more equal and higher than others is turned upside down. "Consider yourself the least of all... take the last place... become like a child (who has no rights or equalities). "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven." "The greatest of all is the one who is among you as a servant." To talk about equality is somehow to talk about power: It is to talk about self-image and self-affirmation: the need to feel on the same level as others, the fear of being relegated to some lower rung on the ladder as someone who doesn=t count. Perhaps it is truer to say that it is the need to be recognized as a person in your own right. According to Mulieris Dignitatem, that is exactly the purpose of God=s creation of man and woman: to be for the other, to see the other as a person in her/his own right. The effects of original sin have seriously impaired our capacity to do that and thus we grasp desperately for the self-worth that we cannot give to ourselves: we can only give it to each other. How are we as an Order growing in that capacity? Perhaps that means more to me than looking for "New Equalities". How are we overcoming undue inequalities based on gender and clerical status so as to live our Cistercian vocation together in communion and complementarity that rejoices in the variety and abundance of gifts and ministries given by the Spirit to build up the Body of Christ?

The first time I visited a Trappist Monastery in 1971, I found the atmosphere rather cold and distant. I went up to a dark balcony from which I could not see the liturgy being celebrated below. Then exploring around outside of the church, I was confronted with a large sign that said "Enclosure: any woman that goes beyond this point will be excommunicated". I was amazed and felt rejected, excluded. I did not talk to anyone and only found out there was woman=s branch about a year later. At about the same time I visited a simple Benedictine monastery where women were allowed to enter freely into the simple church and join fully into the liturgy. It was beautiful. After some time of silent prayer alone in the church, a young monk came in and I smiled at him to share my happiness. To my surprise he turned around and fled. I was mortified. "So, " I thought, " in monasteries it=s the same as in the world... a woman is not a sister in Christ but a symbol of sex. The only difference is that in a monastery she is considered a dangerous source of temptation." I got the same message at cloistered convents of nuns with grills and turns to keep the men out. Relations with the opposite sex are dangerous. The situation was maybe worse in convents of nuns, because even women were not allowed in: anyone who was not a cloistered nun was dangerous! All this raised some disturbing questions for me but I knew that whatever the problems were, my place was on the inside and finally I found a monastery who had the courage to let me inside the grills. For years I left behind me any thought of what relations were with the outside or with the opposite sex.

I am sure we all have memories of similar experiences of how things used to be. I mention mine as a prelude that shows very clearly how far we have come in so short a time. Without any protest marches or movements, the grills and the signs and the separating walls have tumbled down, almost of their own free will. A rapid, though gradual evolution has taken place within our Order in which unheard-of and unthought-of equalities, relationships, structures of sharing and collaboration have sprung up and are now taken quite for granted. Obviously not without effort, disputes, mistakes, resistances, fear, psychological and physical suffering as well as courageous decisions and wise leadership. Most of all, there has been an incredible openness to the Spirit which has led us from day to day, month to month, year to year, Chapter to Chapter. It used to be that the monks - the abbots - were the thinkers, the leaders, the spiritual guides, the decision makers. They had a big voice in the life of the nuns because of their power of governance. The nuns themselves had little voice in their own communities and no voice at all in the life of the monks. That mirrored the situation of the Church and the society at large. Men did the thinking and the governing, women listened and obeyed - at least in theory. A radical change took place. Openness to life has led us to discern each concrete situation that we encountered on our journey in the light of our unity as an Order of monks and nuns. The inherent logic of complementarity brought us to change more and more structures as it became obvious that they needed to be changed. At the same time, relations between men and women superiors evolved from relations based on formalities and fears to friendships based on mutual respect and esteem, in a common pastoral concern. I never once heard public recriminations on the part of nuns for the heavy handed rule of the male branch in all details of their lives before the Vatican renewal. There was awareness and suffering, but also humor and love. The Order manifested an ability to live through enormous historic change with faith, respect and understanding for the limitations of the past, and transcendental love for unity much deeper than any bitter feelings that might have split the two branches. Of course, there were those who left, victims of the upheaval and confusion. With them went prophets with vision too clear to bear the burden of waiting in patient hope. And there were conservatives who opposed the openness, which was sometimes forced upon them too brusquely. The suffering of those who left is also our suffering. Certainly all of it has borne fruit of new life and deeper unity.

In this whole process of evolution, there has rarely been a sign of abbesses demanding equal powers. It has been a surprise (and not always a welcome one) for the abbesses as well as the abbots. In fact, some abbesses feared structures that were too mixed, too interdependent just as they feared structures that made the branches too independent. The fear was that the Holy See would separate the branches and their only desire was the preservation of unity at any cost. They were not seeking power and independence for themselves. Perhaps they could have been criticized as being too deferential, too dependent. But a deeper look reveals a spiritual intuition that staying together was the most important thing. Changes would then be created simply by their presence. In fact, "new equality" entails a change from a system based on seeking power to a communion based on sharing power.

The long process of writing new constitutions with the full participation of both branches was a monumental task in which we came to the awesome discovery that we needed each other, that we truly lived the same charism, that the nuns had important intuitions and understanding based on life and spiritual experience that complemented the thinking of the monks. The courageous decision to have the first Mixed Meeting in 1987 for the approval of those Constitutions opened a door that could never be closed again. Mixed Regional meetings and very especially mixed formation sessions - both of formators and for young monks and nuns - have given us rich experience of learning together and simply "being together" in the same desire for God, the same vocation, the same difficulties in living it, the same love of our tradition and the same concern to respond to the needs of our times. In fact, what happened was a gradual, voluntary sharing of power. In many cases, the logic of complementarity and equality was suggested and promoted by >liberated men= rather than liberated women because of their desire to include the nuns in all dimensions of the life of the Order. Notable among them is our own Abbot General, Dom Bernardo Olivera, who, at the Mixed Meeting of 1993, broke with the tradition that only the abbot general gave "Chapter talks" or conferences by sharing his teaching function not only with other abbots but with abbesses as well. Women were not only moderating sessions of the primarily male Mixed Meeting but also giving Chapter talks to the abbots! And it was evident that they had something to say, something to be listened to. He likewise enunciated his "utopias" including the complete interdependence of both branches in all structures of the Order, up to and including the possibility of an Abbess General. In many instances the mixity preceded the creation of structures. A good example of this occurred at the Mixed Meeting of 1993 when we invented a new way of studying house reports in Mixed Commissions. The amazing surprise was that we found ourselves, men and women superiors, making pastoral evaluations of men=s and women=s houses. Women with a voice in the discernment of men=s pastoral problems! Previously unheard of and never consciously proposed with an awareness of all its implications by anyone. The commissions were already mixed. We were simply seeking a more effective way of reading the reports. Strange that when we voted on the new method, no one proposed that the house reports should be read in commissions of the separate Chapters. Our instinct was almost always inevitably for mixity, only realizing the consequences as we went along. And the consequences were very positive: many difficult cases that no one had dared to really face up to before in the male structures of the Order became the object of deep pastoral care - I might say of loving maternal care. Now we approach the >logical= conclusion of a mixed pastoral commission and a mixed permanent council. This together with the increasing role of abbesses as visitors and co-visitors is bringing about a radical revolution: from a situation 50 years ago in which the nuns were completely dependent on the monks, to a lived interdependence even at the level of government and pastoral participation of nuns in the affairs of houses of men. I am sure there will continue to be an evolution in our mixed structures, in our cooperation, in our awareness of how we mutually enrich each other.

In this journey toward the new equality of communion, in some ways the nuns have had more gains and advantages than the monks. The nuns have experienced incredible growth of freedom, self-government, maturity, responsibility for their own monastic formation and expression of their monastic vision. Their sense of identity in their specifically feminine graces and ways of living the monastic life has deepened and flourished. They have been given more and more opportunities of sharing and collaborating within the Order. It must be noted that the possibility for them to benefit from the deliberations of the extraordinary General Chapters of Abbots for renewal in the >60's and >70's helped them to embark on the process of renewal with advantages that cloistered nuns in other Orders did not always receive. This made a significant difference in their capacity to evolve and bonded them in gratitude to the male branch in a way which enabled all of us to grow in interdependence.

It is clear that what we are talking about is not just a change of structures. There has been an inexorable evolution of life. That is a sign of the Spirit at work, a capacity for change and an experience of the charism of unity which is at the heart of our Cistercian life. In a time of such incredible change in ideas and values, when the emergence of women in both society and in the Church has often created tensions and conflict, we have been graced to grow in complementarity that leads to deeper communion for all of us, both men and women. I am sure that the abbots and monks have personally felt the benefits. It has not been the case of simply allowing the nuns to accede to equality with their male counter parts. We have all been changed and that is truly a NEW equality - one that did not exist before. Are there still discriminations, unjustified differences, inequalities between monks and nuns, abbots and abbesses? Do we relate to each other on a plane of equal respect and esteem, without the influences of caricatures and cultural determinations of gender differences? Certainly, we all still have a long path of conversion ahead of us before we relate to each and every person as >a being in her/his own right=, as a gift of God, as an invitation to profound mutual self-giving in love without categorizing, criticizing, dismissing the other as someone of little interest, belittling the other simply because the other is different and therefore threatening. However, in our international, transcultural, multilingual mixed Order, I think we have realized that differences between men and women are not something to be afraid of. The more we accept the cultural, generational, gender differences and face them together, the more we find our true selves in new communion where the word >equality= somehow doesn=t say enough. However, to achieve that deep interpersonal unity, we have to >suffer the differences=. We have to continue our path of conversion from the selfish view that the way I/we think, feel, react and decide is the measure of the universe - the measure of other human beings.

We still have much to explore and discover together about the "New Qualities" of communion and interdependence in dimensions that have nothing to do with structures. For example, at the last Mixed Meeting, our mixed commission spoke frequently about the need for more maternity in the Order in regards to foundations, communities in difficulty, young people in vocational crisis. Maternity means caring and nurturing over a long time span, rather than seeking immediate one shot solutions. It means hoping against hope, ready to try anything - including risky self-sacrifice for the life of the community, the foundation, the young, the elderly. Maternity that dares to scold and reprimand out of love and concern and tell people personal things >that only a mother can say=. Maternity that teaches how to live and grow, how to be weak and finally how to die. Maternity that is exercised not only by women but by men whose hearts are touched by the maternity of God. In his annual letter to the Order in 1998, Dom Bernardo highlighted the importance of a new anthropology based on the woman as archetype of all that is human and pleaded with the nuns to share their insights on the Gospel, on theology and on monastic tradition with the monks who needed to learn from them. On the basis of that letter, I had the beautiful experience last year of leading my community in a long, in-depth exploration of our womanhood which has changed all of us in many ways and continues to open up new dimensions in our monastic life as women followers of Jesus. We are just at the beginning.

At the level of our local communities new qualities of complementarity are growing and giving more opportunities to experience our brother- and sisterhood in the same vocation and to learn from each other. Many other Regions are much further ahead in this area but, for example, our community has experienced a maturation of relationships with the monks of Rawaseneng. We created a number of modalities of encounter and formation together that have helped us grow in deeper relations, purified from social ways of seeking attention from the opposite sex. Our novitiate visited the novices at Rawaseneng. A number of sisters attended courses held at Rawaseneng by professors from the seminary for the monks preparing for the priesthood. It seems that everyone benefitted from that experience, the learning atmosphere was more focused and even the professors felt they could give more. Then a group of monks participated in a seminar given by Fr. Chrysogonus at Gedono on the Cistercian heritage. Small group discussions were lively and often became invitations - or challenges - to personal and community conversion. We also had the extraordinary event of a day of recollection, discussion and fraternal celebration of the 9th Centenary of Citeuax. The two communities prepared for the meeting with group dialogues on the theme: How do we live the Cistercian Charism in Indonesia today. The sisters of Gedono learned a lot about their own identity as a community of Cistercian women that had something very precious to share with their brothers. This was a big change because beforehand the tendency had always been to imagine that the men had more, knew more, "were" more than the nuns. A new consciousness grew of real equality as brothers and sisters who have the same vocation, the same tradition, the same charism, the same conversatio and a common mission.

We have often heard it said that women=s communities were more community-minded and men=s communities more individualistic. Indeed, sometimes it was said in a tone that implied community life was not as demanding as the solitary life, that women did not have what it takes to live in serious solitude, as if community life was a need rather than a demanding vocation. It is indeed both need and vocation. Cistercian-Benedictine life is not an individualistic mountain climb up to the heights of spiritual contemplation. It is a communal journey down the descending path of humility, following Jesus together into the Mystery of his death and resurrection, the lame leading the blind, the blind supporting the lame. It is discovering the truth and beauty of the words of Psalm 133: "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers - and sisters - dwell together in unity!" - a discovery made possible only through personal conversion with its inevitable suffering. However, an individualistic mentality tends to see such unity as immaturity, conformity of people who lack self identity, unable to think for themselves, afraid to say anything different, afraid to buck the majority pressures, afraid of authority, and so, willing to follow along. However, my experience has been that people who are not yet capable of thinking out their own conclusions are often the most likely to cause disruption, splits and division based on personal likes and dislikes. Individualism holds that to be a strong individual, one has to have one=s own thoughts and opinions. Strong opinions strongly expressed give a sense of self identity. "I am what I think." That could make building a common vision difficult. But the need to have different opinions from others in order to affirm one=s own identity is a sure sign of insecurity as a person. Unity and common vision are not the fruit of thinking the same things Real unity depends on willing the same things together and does not eliminate personal thought and responsibility. We live together, experience the same things together, pray, reflect and discuss things together in the light of the teaching of the Gospel, the Church and the Order. Why should it be so surprising that we learn to think together about what we experience, who we are as a community, what our hopes and problems are? But it can only happen if that unity of vision is desired and sought by all as a gift of God=s Mercy that embraces all our poverty and weakness. That entails personal choices of self-knowledge, conversion, forgiveness and prayer. It requires the willingness to sacrifice one=s own way of thinking and feeling and acting for the common good of the community: from voluntas propria to voluntas comune. We have to be willing to suffer for the unity we long for. Then we can learn how to make discernments together based on commonly held criteria decided on together. In doing so, we experience the fragile miracle of what it means to be a "Church" of one heart and one mind, communion in our life together as well as in solitude.

But why is it that men=s communities are more individualistic? Certainly individualism is not an inevitable, unchangeable masculine characteristic but rather a culturally determined mode of behavior resulting from the dominant modern rationalist culture. Emphasis on the self-made man is depicted as the goal of human existence by some important brands of modern philosophy. Emphasis on self led to a new kind of personal consciousness of individual autonomy that had never been known in more traditional communitarian societies. If each reasonable self is a tiny universe closed in on itself, the result is individualism, self-centeredness and sheer competition. By dint of giving too much attention to this interior universe, awareness of the other as a fellow human being got lost. Human values got lost. God got lost. Small wonder men were more affected by this culture, since it had been developed by rationalsitc men. They suffered from their own conclusions. They found themselves enslaved to unreal expectations about themselves, their role in life, the need to succeed, to achieve, to be completely autonomous and self-made in the rugged individualism that was held up as model and goal. They were educated to be strong and rational, to avoid the weaknesses of affections and emotions - deprived of their natural abilities to build community. Of course, women were also victims of this culture. They too, were told what they were and what they were not but in a more passive, implicit way, because they were not active players. It was only in this century that they began to have the chance to >enter into a man=s world= by education and career. The >real world= they sought to enter turned out to be only the shiny tinsel of individualism that was not worth what it had been cracked up to be.

The Church was also influenced by individualism, particularly in the priesthood and in the field of personal piety. When Vatican II opened the doors and windows, many were blown right out by the alluring attractions of self-realization which looked like a reproach to our Trappist uniformity of life. Those winds of change revealed a lot of individualism lurking behind our exterior uniformity. Spirituality based on heroic personal achievement without human contact with others in the community was a very individualistic enterprise. It took the grace-filled years of aggiornamento to discover how far we had gone from the original ideal of a >school of charity= and to begin the long, slow journey in another direction: about 180 degrees about face. But long ingrained habits and mentalities are not as quick to be changed as our ideas or our structures. We all have an incredible capacity to change our understanding of spirituality without really having a change of heart.

We all need constant conversion to be freed of our individualistic tendencies to seek personal perfection and self-affirmation. We need new qualities of real openness in deep relationships with others in all their otherness. The ideals and writings of the Cistercian Fathers are full of images of close, fraternal love. They were free to feel and express their emotions and to be enraptured by the mystical language of the Song of Songs without embarrassment. They had the grace of living before the Age of Rationalism, before late scholastic theology began to dominate the Catholic mentality. It would seem that the nuns were able to keep in touch with the more monastic spirituality of the Cistercian writers - excluded as they were from theological study, less affected by cerebral, masculine rationalism. Perhaps they were thus more prepared to welcome the Vatican II ecclesiology of the Church as communion and to find ways of incarnating it in our cenobitic life. If women have some graces of nature and intuition about how to do that, then we have a responsibility to become aware of that together, by continuing to share life together, by continuing to empower each other.

There are some major differences between communities of nuns and communities of monks in regards to formation and studies. By and large the women have been excluded from formal studies and many communities of nuns are still against sending members outside the community to study. Before renewal the nuns received little or no instruction except the bare essentials needed to follow the liturgy, which many of them did not understand. In the last 30 years, the nuns have developed very serious monastic formation programs, taught largely by self-taught nuns with no degrees in the material. Many nuns have become experts in the Fathers, Scriptures, monastic spirituality through their own reading and the learning experience of teaching the younger members. Many monasteries have formidable ongoing formation programs with visiting professors in far-reaching and demanding subjects. It is more common now for nuns to go out for courses, special sessions and (in the case of a few) to regular university programs. However, the fact that most study continues to be done at home has its own advantages. We learn together, from the same sources. Courses or chapter talks are not purely intellectual activities but rather matter for reflection, prayer and discussion that leads to integration of new ideas and insight into our community life. A culture is built up which increases our ability to deepen and broaden our common vision.

For the monks, studies are often a real problem. Long years of study for young monks who are preparing for the priesthood become more and more difficult to sustain, inside or outside the community. If young monks go to different univseristies or seminaries, each one is formed in a different way and there is little chance of discussion and exchange afterwards within the community. Years of purely intellectual/rational study at the beginning of monastic life do not give room for monastic formation of the person, assimilation of monastic values and praxis and other ways of contemplative experiential knowledge. There is little time for building up a sense of community among those in formation through dialogue, knowledge of self received from others, the blessed experience of sin, weakness, and mercy together. Does the ordination of a priest-monk really require a formal degree in theology? Perhaps the Order, or the separate monasteries, could seek exemption from requirements to fulfill the overloaded curriculum of the seminaries for active priests. Many subjects are not needed for a monk/priest. Maybe we could join forces to seek new programs of monastic study for both monks and nuns over longer periods of time that are more contemplative, intuitive, holistic. Formations sessions for monks and nuns together, where nuns also do some of the teaching and animating, have been deeply appreciated by all the participants. The sessions of Cistercian Heritage given by Fr. Michael Casey, with a year=s preparation of study at home before coming together, indicate possibilities of programs combining home study e-mail courses with periodic sessions together for dialogue and workshops. Learning together is the best method for growing in complementarity. We might get some insights about how to continue in that direction from the experience of Hildegaard of Bingen and the double monasteries of the 12th century.

The priesthood and its eccclesiastical power of governance represents the one basic difference that remains between monks and nuns. On a structural level, the nuns= branch depends on the power of governance that rests in the Chapter of Abbots. At the moment a foundation becomes autonomous, its canonical affiliation shifts from its founding house to a male Father Immediate. We are dependent on the Father Immediate for several canonical acts and for the services of a monk/priest to serve as chaplain. This canonical dependence causes no problem of inequality if lived in the communion of complementarity and not as a structure of power. Problems of course can always emerge between a daughter house and its Father Immediate. But I have learned in mixed commissions at the General Chapters that the problems are basically the same in the men=s branch.

Access to the priesthood itself does not present a problem of inequality between monks and nuns. Equality does not mean that all must have the same roles and powers. I believe Cistercian nuns love their vocation and find fulfillment in living to the full their baptismal grace. Their concern about priesthood is not to seek access to it but to encourage the monks to appreciate the gift of priesthood and to ordain a sufficient number of priests in order to assure chaplains for the women=s houses. Here lies a difference between the branches because we tend to see the role of priesthood in monastic life from rather different points of view. I think there is a lack of awareness among the nuns of the problems caused for the monks by the controversy over monastic life seen as a lay charism rather than as a clerical state. Perhaps some nuns had a slight identity crisis when we were told that religious life is not a higher state of life than the lay one. But the confusion caused by the identity crisis in the priesthood itself and by the complete reversal of how priesthood was seen in the monastic community has still not been resolved. Men=s monasteries tend to try to resolve it themselves because it is considered a problem strictly concerning the monks. The women seldom hear anything about it. Yet it is of vital concern for all of us. The two branches could go in two very different directions: the monks toward declericalization, the nuns fervently praying for more vocations to the priesthood.

The question becomes: "What is the place and role of priesthood in the monastic life?" Unless we nuns, monks and monk-priests arrive at a common vision on the matter, there will be tensions, theological and ideological differences that influence personal relations and unity. If there is no clear, accepted identity of the priest-monk, how can we expect monks to want to be ordained? If there is no deeper appreciation for the mystery of the priesthood as an integral part of the monastic community, ordinations will continue to decline with unforseen consequences on our sacramental lives and the unity of the Order. It is interesting that the potential problem of disunity caused by the priesthood in our Order is not because women want to be ordained priests, but because there are communities in which men no longer want to become priests or have many priests in the community. It is not the women who wish to accede to the clerical state, rather the men who wish to embrace the lay state. I am sure there is some hidden wisdom here, some Word of God for us that we can probably only hear if we listen together, seeking to deepen our communion of complementarity. We all have our part of responsibility in discovering the role of the priesthood in Cistercian monastic life for the new millennium.

The Place of the Priesthood in the Order

The priesthood and its eccclesiastical power of governance represents the one basic difference that remains between monks and nuns. On a structural level, the nuns= branch depends on the power of governance that rests in the Chapter of Abbots. At the moment a foundation becomes autonomous, its canonical affiliation shifts from its founding house to a male Father Immediate. We are dependent on the Father Immediate for several canonical acts and for the services of a monk/priest to serve as chaplain. This canonical dependence causes no problem of inequality if lived in the communion of complementarity and not as a structure of power. Problems of course can always emerge between a daughter house and its Father Immediate. But I have learned in mixed commissions at the General Chapters that the problems are basically the same in the men=s branch.

Access to the priesthood itself does not present a problem of inequality between monks and nuns. Equality does not mean that all must have the same roles and powers. I believe Cistercian nuns love their vocation and find fulfillment in living to the full their baptismal grace. Their concern about priesthood is not to seek access to it but to encourage the monks to appreciate the gift of priesthood and to ordain a sufficient number of priests in order to assure chaplains for the women=s houses. Here lies a difference between the branches because we tend to see the role of priesthood in monastic life from rather different points of view. I think there is a lack of awareness among the nuns of the problems caused for the monks by the controversy over monastic life seen as a lay charism rather than as a clerical state. Perhaps some nuns had a slight identity crisis when we were told that religious life is not a higher state of life than the lay one. But the confusion caused by the identity crisis in the priesthood itself and by the complete reversal of how priesthood was seen in the monastic community has still not been resolved. Men=s monasteries tend to try to resolve it themselves because it is considered a problem strictly concerning the monks. The women seldom hear anything about it. Yet it is of vital concern for all of us. The two branches could go in two very different directions: the monks toward declericalization, the nuns fervently praying for more vocations to the priesthood.

The question becomes: "What is the place and role of priesthood in the monastic life?" Unless we nuns, monks and monk-priests arrive at a common vision on the matter, there will be tensions, theological and ideological differences that influence personal relations and unity. If there is no clear, accepted identity of the priest-monk, how can we expect monks to want to be ordained? If there is no deeper appreciation for the mystery of the priesthood as an integral part of the monastic community, ordinations will continue to decline with unforseen consequences on our sacramental lives and the unity of the Order. It is interesting that the potential problem of disunity caused by the priesthood in our Order is not because women want to be ordained priests, but because there are communities in which men no longer want to become priests or have many priests in the community. It is not the women who wish to accede to the clerical state, rather the men who wish to embrace the lay state. I am sure there is some hidden wisdom here, some Word of God for us that we can probably only hear if we listen together, seeking to deepen our communion of complementarity. We all have our part of responsibility in discovering the role of the priesthood in Cistercian monastic life for the new millennium.

In the results of last year=s questionnaire on the possibility of a non-ordained monk becoming superior in a community of men, I was surprised to read some rather emotional statements and reactions that betrayed tensions between monk/priests and non-priest monks. There was aggressiveness, defensiveness and polarization. Here are some negative responses: "Priests would have difficulty obeying to a non-priest abbot; they would have to give proof of their humility; it would create rivalries and conflict between priests and the superior; one would have less confidence in the discretion of a non-priest abbot; it would require a greater act of faith. Some positive responses: "A non-priest abbot would be of the same rank as other brothers; it would show that non-priest monks are truly monks, that a priest is not a super-monk."

No general conclusions can be drawn from these comments, which may express only a very partial view of the situation, but they undeniably give a sense of inequality, as though between two classes. If we remember that, practically speaking, all choir monks were priests before the Declaration of Unification in 1965, the tensions that still exist are basically between the same two groups: ex-choir monks (priests) and ex-lay brothers. Differences between them that stem from the priesthood still remain. Only priests exercise sacramental functions, become confessors of the other monks, have longer and more intense studies, are usually given pastoral tasks, as well as responsibilities in formation and teaching, perhaps have more contact with the guests for spiritual guidance and confessions, are invited out to give conferences and retreats. Perhaps they go out more frequently to celebrate marriages and baptisms of family members at least and tend to have less manual work because of pastoral and intellectual work. Besides the specifically priestly functions, there are differences of position and role in the community. We can understand how feelings of inferiority, superiority, envy, ambition might arise because of differences in spiritual rank and position. But all of this seems to be on the level of sociology and psychology. As such, it can all be seen as part of the normal human adventure: the warp and woof of community life, self-knowledge, conversion, collaboration and growth in communion through the acceptance of differences, renunciation of the worldly mentality of seeking self-affirmation and realization through status, career, education, positions of influence and power.

Nothing is more central to our monastic life as the vow of continual conversion along the path of humility and obedience. Ambition and envy are evil thoughts of the heart as Cassian taught us, following Evagrius. They are not caused by differences of role or position but because our hearts are easily deceived and we do not really seek God above all things. We seek ourselves and our petty gains and titles and importance. We have the same problem with inequalities in our non-clerical monastic communities of nuns. Those chosen for important tasks, those seen as close collaborators with the superior, are often the object of jealousy. It takes a lot of humility to see and admit our envy, ambition, our need for assurance of being loved and accepted, our need to achieve something meaningful in an important task. If we do not choose the path of self-knowledge and conversion, personal needs are projected onto the superior and the community. The result is frustration, bitterness and murmuring in the house of God. The problem is not one of inequalities but of power. Power is not something evil in itself. It=s what we do with it that counts. We use it to build up ourselves or we share it to build community, inviting the other to discover unknown capacities and hidden treasures that then become the wealth of all and in turn empower others to grow. The Rule of St Benedict show us the way. There will always be people who are more gifted than others. Do we use those gifts according to obedience in all humility for the good of the community?(RB 57) Do we rejoice for the gifts of others in the spirit of Chapter 72?

We must admit, however, that there are special problems as far as the priesthood is concerned because of the weight of centuries of clericalism in the Church and in the monastic life. The monks of Egypt may have shunned priests and avoided ordination, affirming the independence of their lay, charismatic state. But little by little, more and more monks became priests. By the 17th century, it had become a general rule that all choir monks were priests. The caste system existed in the monastic world and priests were obviously the higher ups - spiritually and intellectually as well as materially. Before Vatican II, the priesthood was considered the fullness of monkhood. All pastoral offices in the community had to be filled by priests. The monastic life had been completely clericalized.

With Vatican II and the return to the sources of monastic life as a lay movement, there was a radical about-face and monks began to feel that the priesthood interfered with the simplicity of monastic life rather than fulfilling it and bringing it to a more complete sacramental plane. The ministerial functions of the priesthood were seen to be in conflict with the solitary life. The image of the priest as part of an elite, privileged spiritual, "clerical" class backfired in many Western monasteries so that monks no longer wanted to become priests because they did not want to be identified with that image. They wanted to be on the par with all the brothers, not in places of honor on a higher plane. They wanted to distance themselves from the clerical state and reaffirm the lay character of all monasticism. After the Council there was a period of enthusiasm for the early monasticism of the desert fathers with a resulting eremitical movement as well as the anti-clerical one. The >80's and >90's have been more marked by the rediscovery not only of the mystical works of our Cistercian Fathers but also of the truly cenobitic character of the school of love. As far as I know the founding fathers were priests and had no difficulty with that. The priesthood was an accepted and necessary element of their community life. They sought to separate themselves from the abuses of clericalism and all its privileges but they did not confuse priesthood with clericalism. Neither should we. Despite the collusion of monastic life with clericalism in many periods of its history, the monasticism of the Egyptian desert is by no means the apex of monastic life and we cannot base our decisions on their standards and practices. Monks can no longer simply run away from ordination any more than they can from women. We cannot take models from another era as ideals that can be realized in our own. Creative fidelity is much more demanding than that. We cannot simply ask: "What is the authentic relationship between the priesthood and monastic life based on past history?". We must rather wonder: "How can we live fully our monastic ideal of total surrender to God=s love in our cenobitic charism today? How can monk-priests live their particular state in humble service to the brethren in order to build up communion in that love?" We must discern the essence of both the priestly and the monastic vocation, then seek new ways of harmonizing them in accord with the signs and needs of our times. The monastic life and the priesthood are two distinct vocations which can be harmoniously combined in the same person. I feel the oft-quoted statement of Pope Paul VI "the priesthood is the crown of the monastic life" is not helpful. It is not the sacrament of orders that completes something that is lacking. The crown of the monastic life is total abandon to God in love. I would suppose that the crown of the priesthood is basically the same thing.

The painful question is: "If priests are called to be more closely associated with the humble service of Jesus who washed the feet of his disciples and gave his life rather than use any kind of power or influence to save it and place himself above others, how is it that those who wished to follow Jesus more closely in a humble ministry of service to the Word and the sacraments of his presence were so quickly co-opted into a caste system that put them on a higher plane than other ordinary believers? And yet, the fact is that, from the early centuries onward, priests were given so much honor and respect for their priestly ordination and function, that they were considered better, holier than others. They received (and accepted!) special honors and privileges. The Church had to incarnate itself in a patriarchal society and it inevitably became part of it. The Edict of Constantine accorded the clergy special prerogatives and their status was institutionalized. In due course, wide-spread abuses of the clergy gave them a bad reputation with all those seeking spiritual perfection. A strange contradiction. A tragic compromise with the power structures of the world that was to be a perennial part of the Church=s journey through history.

The clergy became a class of power and prestige, honored for their priesthood, their secret powers of transubstantiation, their secret knowledge of theology. Their function was gradually reduced to that of saying mass. Because the mass was celebrated in Latin, the liturgy became almost exclusively the activity of the priests. The practice of private masses added to an individualism that separated the priest from the people and from each other. Popular opinion held that a priest was automatically holy because of his ordination, because of his knowledge of holy things. There was a general impression that the special indelible sacramental character made a priest more than ordinary believers - even if considered apart from jobs, careers, influence, clericalism and hierarchy. If it were a more that made him more like Christ, that more would make him the humble servant of all. On the contrary, it seemed to be an ontological more that put him in a class above the laity. This was promoted by an undue influence of late scholastic theology, which tended to enhance the doctrine of the sacramental character, produced a mythic theology of the priesthood, placing it on a higher level of being than the rest of the faithful, a metaphysical clericalism. If there are residues of that mentality in a monastic community, I can understand the special problems of the non-priests - especially when living elbow-to-elbow with priests who are less than holy. It could also cause problems for priests as well: they would be very easily scandalized with themselves, and thus, tempted to hide their faults and put up a front of spiritual perfection. How could they grow in knowledge of self and humility?

However, it is now taught that the sacramental character of Orders is "the right to the actual graces proper to the sacrament, the visible rite of ordination by which the ordained is incorporated into the college of his 'order'. Its principal element is the mission of service. The main effect of this consecration is that it is definitive. No priest may be re-ordained. This aspect of the character can be based on the fidelity of the divine election rather than on an ontological quality." An ordained bishop, priest or deacon is not a super-Christian. The fundamental ontological change is given with the sacrament of baptism which makes us truly adopted children of God. We receive the grace of justification brought about by the inhabitation of the three divine persons. The sacrament of Orders deepens and re-orientates that baptismal grace in view of the specific mission and sacramental ministry of the priest. As the Church has been called to offer itself to the Father as the Body of Christ, those called to the ordained priesthood represent the Head of the Body, they represent Christ in a special way for the sake of the Body. Certainly it is not the priesthood itself that places some above others. It is how we consider the priesthood, how priests consider themselves, how we treat them, what identity is given to them. Ordained priests are brothers at the service of our common priesthood, not mediators over and above others, between them and God. Only in a Church in which all of us live deeply the dimension of our priestly baptismal character, can we discover new qualities of the ordained priesthood in our midst that give that sacramental service its true dignity and worth. We need to discover new ways of relating with priests - not as persons on a higher spiritual level, not as persons designated to have power over us, not in formalistic ways that attribute superiority to their human persons and give them false ideas about themselves but rather in fraternal friendship, with loving respect for their sacrament of service.

This new vision of the place of the priesthood is much closer to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church. The Church had lost sight of its real identity as a priestly people, gathered in unity by the unique sacrifice of Christ, to offer spiritual sacrifices of holy lives lived together in the communion with God to which Jesus had given us access through the Holy Spirit. Since the late nineteenth century, the Liturgical Movement, a movement inspired and carried out by monks, sought to remind the Church of what it had lost and opened the way to reform and renewal in the event of Vatican II. But we still have a long way to go to incarnate that renewed vision of the Church. Our monastic communities have special responsibilities to bring to full fruition the deepest insights of the Liturgical Movement as part of our vocation to be organs of transmission of the life of the Church from one generation to the next. Are we not called today to redeem centuries of power by understanding and assuming the mistakes of the Church, asking forgiveness for them, understanding the underlying causes, giving thanks for God=s infinite mercy and faithfulness to his sinful Church, while offering our own poor efforts to live more fully the Mystery of the Church in new hope?

We can only find the new place of the priesthood in monastic life in the context of this dramatic moment for the entire Church. Understanding of the priesthood In the Church today is so confused that there are few vocations. Many young men turn away sad - not only because they fear to leave all that gives them worth and security, but also because the Church is not offering them a clear image of the gift of priesthood Christ is offering them. Do not our communities have a responsibility to give prophetic witness to the deep reality of the priesthood, there where monks live at the heart of the Mystery, not so burdened with active ministries? We need to give witness to new qualities of priesthood : seeking to serve as Jesus served, to be victim as well as priest, to be the least of all the brethren, to break the bread of one=s own life to give life and nourishment to the Church, the local Church of the community and the universal Church starving for lack of real priests. All of us, monks and nuns, could seek to deepen our consciousness of our common priesthood: called to be one in Christ=s offering by the total offering of our lives in monastic consecration, in continual liturgical prayer that extends the Eucharist throughout the day and night and integrates our tasks and activities into that self-oblation of Christ. We are called to be conformed to Christ in humility and obedience, poverty and chastity, in contemplative love, adoring praise of Him and His Father - by embracing and living the fullness of baptismal grace. A monk called to be a priest is given an additional ministerial service - based on the sacrament of Orders - to be exercised in the same humility of Jesus. Is there really a conflict between exercising priestly functions within the community and being a good humble monk who is not above the others? Vatican II calls for in the renewal of the priesthood in just those terms: that the priests should live in the midst of men as brothers among brothers. St Benedict faced all these problems back in the 6th century with his characteristic charismatic openness and discretion.

Although the Rule of the Master, following monastic tradition, did not allow ordained priests to become members of the community, St Benedict took a quite different position - one that might be called prophetic and counter-cultural. He could envisage the possibility that a priest could really want to become a monk and that the way of conversion should be open to him just as it was to others, without discrimination but with all due precaution that he would live in humility and obedience like all the other monks. He also provided for the ordination of priests from within the ranks of community who would nevertheless be limited to the priestly and ritual functions, subordinate to the discipline of the rule and the authority of the abbot in all things. (RB 60, 62) Interestingly enough, although putting the priest on guard against the danger of falling into pride because of the honor shown to his priesthood, Benedict seemed to have been much more afraid of the strife that could be caused by the prior. The problems of power, rivalry and pride are not identified with the priesthood. Unlike the Master, Benedict does not seem to exclude the possibility of a priest being given pastoral tasks. It is the abbot who chooses the candidate and remains in authority over the ordained monk. The bishop ordains him but his ordination does not give him any role of government within the community. I would dare to venture that Benedict was not afraid of the hierarchical, clerical Church encroaching on the charismatic power of the abbatial office or disrupting the harmony of the community. He even hopes for the intervention of the bishop in the internal affairs of the community if necessary to ensure harmony when circumstances warranted. (RB 64) This is a good example of acceptance of the hierarchical Church not as an enemy to be feared but as a necessary institution for safeguarding unity. The charismatic and institutional elements of the Church can and should be complementary. In Chapter 65, it is clear that Benedict is aware that the bishop may very well do things that cause dissension in the community because of insensitivity to the psychological reality of community life. But there seems to be a relationship of trust and cooperation with the local Church. He was also well aware of the dangers of pride in the priesthood, but the sacramental life of the community was more important than fears of difficulties that could arise from non-priests in positions of honor and authority just as much as from priests. Obviously the priests were given special honors but Benedict was very capable of teaching both the priests and the non-priests of the community that any special veneration showed to a priest was granted to him out of respect for his priesthood, not for his person. Thus the priest could avoid the temptations of conceit and power, knowing that the priesthood was a gratuitous gift of God and the non-priests could avoid the temptation of envy, because in any other matter the priest was considered the same as any one else, taking the place that corresponded to the date of his entry. Benedict was able to harmonize differences with equality, without creating a higher class of monks. His Rule is full of examples of Christian freedom which does not bow to human standards of justice and equality that seek to avoid jealousy by giving the same measure to all. "Distribution was made to each one as he had need. Whoever needs less should thank God and not be distressed, but whoever needs more should feel humble because of his weakness, not self-important because of the kindness shown him.  In this way all the members will be at peace." There is to be no discrimination based on human differences. "A man born free is not to be given higher rank than a slave who becomes a monk, except for some other good reason.  Ordinarily, everyone is to keep his regular place, because whether slave or free, we are all one in Christ (Gal 3:28; Eph 6:8) and share alike in bearing arms in the service of the one Lord, for God shows no partiality among persons (Rom 2:11).  But the abbot is free, if he sees fit, to change anyone's rank for reasons based on quality of life and service to the community.  Benedict also demanded that anyone given the special gift of the priesthood was expected to give an example of humility. "Just because he is a priest... he must make more and more progress toward God." (RB 62) To men accustomed to power in a patriarchal society, Benedict taught that progress is equated with progress in humility. Here Benedict gives us the key to the essential qualities of a priest who is called to be the humblest of all precisely because he is a priest, called to serve the brethren in imitation of Jesus and thus to be worthy to celebrate the divine mysteries for his brother monks.

How do we apply Benedict=s principles in our own times? Many feel that the number of priests should be limited to the liturgical needs of the community, citing the example of Benedict. The Rule does not say exactly that but, even so, how does one determine how many are needed? With possibilities of illness, absences, departures, lack of vocations, unexpected deaths, and the impossibility of just a few priests bearing all the burden of liturgical celebrations, quite a few might be needed. Eventual needs of daughter houses should also be provided for. Unnecessarily limiting the number of ordinations might simply be a backlash in reaction to the excesses of clericalism of the past. The ministries of the priesthood will not disturb the monastic life of anyone if they are shared among many.

In contrast to the past when most vocations came from seminaries at a young age, candidates for monastic life increasingly come from all walks of life and all fields of study; thus, priests will no longer be the only educated, professional men in the community. There will be a more varied and wider spectrum of knowledge and practical experience in which all can mutually give and receive. This also means that not everyone will aspire to the priesthood. Yet there should be an openness on the part of the community to welcome and to foster vocations to the priesthood. Similarly there should be an openness on the part of young monks to be ordained, if the abbot so requests, in order to serve the community, even though perhaps they did not envisage becoming priests when they entered. While respecting each person=s particular calling, it is often difficult to understand a person who has all the qualities and capabilities of serving as a priest, but refuses to be ordained for purely personal reasons. The monastic vocation demands a total gift of self to God in a particular community, with the willingness to accept that the form of that self-gift is usually determined by obedience to the abbot as the spiritual father who has the particular charism of discerning God=s will for each member. A person - man or woman - who enters the monastery and then is asked to be the cellerar, certainly did not enter to become a cellerar. Even more than the duties of a priest, his/her job would seem to interfere with the silent, solitary, prayerful life he/she dreamed of. And yet his/her monastic life becomes the radical gift of self in that stressful service for the glory of God and the building up of the community. Something analogous is true for one who is asked to be ordained. Monastic life is the sacrifice of our will and desires and images of self which is the only access to the depth of mystical union with Christ for which we entered.

It might be helpful if each community could study and dialogue together about the Mystery of our baptismal priesthood and the Eucharist, including personal sharing about the experience of the ordained priesthood. This could create a desire in the community to live and give witness to the new communion between priests and lay that the entire Church is seeking. Interpersonal communication is the path toward communion because through it difficulties about inequalities are often revealed as false problems.

The objection is sometimes made that if there are many priests, they will want to exercise their ministry and be frustrated if they cannot. But their ministry is to be exercised in obedience to the abbot. It is not a personal prerogative. In fact, ministerial duties need not always be given to all priests at all times. If there happen to be three doctors in the community, they do not all serve the medical needs of the community at the same time. But if only one is in charge of the infirmary at any given time, it doesn=t mean the other two are superfluous.

Common guidelines for both priests and non-priests could be worked out as regards enclosure, attendance at family celebrations, participation at sessions and courses. Obviously some more gifted teachers will be asked to serve more frequently by giving retreats and courses in other communities. But that activity should be limited according to the discernment of the community along with the abbot because it affects the life of the whole community. A monk who seeks fulfillment outside of his own community is endangering his monastic vocation.

Jobs that do not specifically require the sacrament of orders could be given to priests and non-priests alike, including guest master and formation tasks. New types of retreat might be offered to guests based on fraternal sharing of faith experience, lectio, prayer and life, as we tend to do in nuns= houses. Guests come to learn about prayer from those who pray, not necessarily a priest. Initial formation based on baptism and monastic spirituality could be given by brothers without priestly formation. The personal monastic qualities of the monk are more important than theological studies. No special honors or positions should be given to priests in the community. Priests can take part in manual labor and take their turns in all the services of the community as they have done for centuries. Many communities already give beautiful examples of this kind of unity and fraternal love.

Concelebration was introduced by Vatican II to foster consciousness of the unity of all priests in the brotherhood of orders as a remedy to the individualism of private masses. It is a beautiful thing to witness a concelebration in a monastery of men where many monks act as one. But in order to foster the unity of all the monks in the brotherhood of the community, perhaps it would be meaningful if some masses were celebrated by one or only a few priests while the others participate along with the non-ordained brothers.

To be a monastic Order of nuns, monks and priests at the threshold of the new millennium is a challenge and a grace. How do we do our part to transform the Church from an organization that is still too clerical to a living organism of service with divine authority in which the greatest among us are the ones who put themselves on their knees to wash our dirty feet? It is a challenge for all of us. How do we learn to lovingly affirm the authority of those who put themselves under us rather than following the human instinct to only want to follow those we feel are above us? Humility is the capacity to make total commitment to God through the imperfect reality of the Church and our communities. We have learned from the experience of the two branches, monks and nuns, that if we are open to life and simply seek unity together, changes happen. If we continue to be open to the Spirit, we will participate in an evolution of new life and structures -- as we have so phenomenally in the last 30 years as a Mixed Order. The day will come when monastic institutions will have their specific place in the structures of the Church. The changes of tomorrow are brought forth by suffering through the problems of today. Life precedes the law..

We are communities centered on the Eucharist, centered on Jesus. Let us learn together the way of relating to each other from the way Jesus relates with us - from the way he related with the group of men and women disciples that followed him around Galilea to Jerusalem. He sought a deep personal relationship with each one, transcending any social and gender categories and customs of his time. He had particularly close friendships with John and Mary Magdalene, which the others learned to appreciate and respect. He shared his authority - not with most brilliant or highly educated of the group. It was charismatic authority and he taught by his words and actions how to live it as service.

We have moved from exterior observances to the interiorization of monastic values. Let us move on again to the new qualities of Christian communion of interpersonal relationships and friendships in spirit and truth - learning to love as Jesus loves. Let us be glad that there are priests among us in that communion. Let us hope that our abbots will want to be priests, not because their authority derives from the priesthood, but because the priesthood will help them all the more to serve the community as fathers and mothers, ready to lay down their lives for their friends. All of us, monks and nuns, have been seduced by God and we wait in solitude and prayer for the apparition of his Glory, because our hearts have been wounded by his love. That Glory appears, unexpectedly, not in the privacy of our separate cells but in the communion we already share. If guests who come to our monasteries experience that communion, celebrated with joy in the Eucharist and the liturgy, where priests and non-priests, men and women, religious and lay can meet together in the unity of Christ, we will be giving a very important witness to the Church of the 21st century. Let us become schools of the Lord=s service and love where the priestly people of God can see a symbol of what they are called to be.