The following presentation on the Xaverian Ecclesiality invites us to - - PDF document

1

The following presentation on the Xaverian Ecclesiality invites us to reflect on the way we relate to ecclesiastical leadership.

• 0 -

What is the place of consecrated men in the Church? It would be easy to think that the answer to this question is obvious, if not long- resolved in theology. The truth, however, is that there was a lot of theological contention before the Second Vatican Council regarding the place of consecrated women and men in the Church. Because of its acknowledged unique origin in the history of the church – that is, a Life Form that originated separately from its clerical and hierarchical structure – theologians debated whether or not Religious Life was actually part of the ecclesial reality. Among non-theologians, however, the question regarding the place

• f consecrated men in the church was something more different.

For the average Catholic before the Second Vatican Council – and even for average Catholics in non-Western countries today – consecrated men are part of a clergy-dominated church. In the mind of many, vowed religious are part of a special group – chosen by God by virtue of the vow of chastity. And just like ordained priests, we were seen as being “set apart” from the laity, specially “chosen” – if not favored – by God. In the understanding and imagination of many, our location within the church’s power structure was somewhere between the ordained and the

• laity. And because of this, we are and were expected to be different, to

look different, to behave differently from the average lay Catholic. It was the Second Vatican Council that set into motion a serious reconsideration about the identity and location of vowed religious in the

• Church. In harmony with its renewed concept that all the baptized

constitute the “People of God” – each called by God as priest, prophet,

2

and servant-king – the Second Vatican Council clarified our place within the ecclesial reality by stating that Religious Life “is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. Rather, the faithful of Christ (who live this Life Form) are called by God from both the clerical and lay states of life.” (LG, 43b) For us religious brothers, this would imply that we are foundationally laypersons, not clerics or even quasi-clerics. However, those called to our life are summoned to discover, accept, and develop a particular gift, a particular charism which marks this life form – that is, the call to vow for celibacy – for the sake of the over-all mission of the Church. Another crucial realization that developed as a result of the Second Vatican Council is that Religious Life is a reality within the Church, a Life Form that is a gift of God to the world. Thus, Religious Life is an ecclesial reality, not simply because of the obvious presence of consecrated women and men in the Church, but because it is an essential element of the Church. However, Religious Life co-exists with another ecclesial reality, the Clerical Hierarchy. Both of these ecclesial realities are constituted by the People of God. Both, in the mind of the Council, are called to become “a visible Sacrament” of the love and mercy of God to all women and men. Both realities did not take their final form and shape immediately – with much difficulty, they evolved through two millennia into what they look like today. But although Religious Life and the Clerical Hierarchy developed side-by-side, their growth was marked by conflicts from the onset. On

• ne hand, the Clerical Leadership understands that it “has receive from

Christ the duty of discerning gifts and competencies, of coordinating multiple energies, and … of caring for religious charisms. (Thus), by fostering religious life and protecting it in conformity with its own

3

definite characteristics, bishops fulfill a real pastoral duty.” (MR, 9) On the other hands, Religious Life originates from groups born out of the prophetic insights of founders to lead lives that actively resist ambition, entitlement, and indulgence – at times as a needed counter-witness to the privileged life led by members of the Clerical Leadership. Because of this, one can understand why there had always been the tendency for Clerical Leadership and Religious Life to be in conflict with each other. At the root of the problem is that the very origin of the Consecrated Life was outside the realms of the Clerical Leadership. In an address given in January 1986, Pope John Paul II synthesized its beginnings in the following manner: Religious Life began in specifically lay form. It sprang from the desire of some faithful Christians to harvest the abundant fruits of their baptismal grace and to free themselves…. from the obstacles which might have distanced them from fervent charity and the perfection of divine worship.1 The earliest religious in the Church clearly distinguished themselves from those who occupied clerical offices. They sought a way of following Christ that was deeply attuned to the calls of the Gospel, but away from an ecclesiastical leadership that had increasingly become privileged and entitled during the era of Emperor Constantine. However, even if they chose to distance themselves from these privileges and entitlements, the early religious did not see themselves as an elite body who enjoyed more closeness to God than other members of the faithful. Like other believers, they were strongly committed to a life which entailed the proclamation of the Word (kerygma), public worship

1 John Paul II, “Discourse to the plenary session of the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes,” 24 January 1986.

4

(leitourgia), service to the neediest and to each other (diakonia), living in common (koinonia), and witnessing to Christ even at the risk of martyrdom (martyria). However, something had always set them apart. To the five Christian commitments already mentioned, the early religious added the practices of voluntary celibacy, dedicated asceticism and fervent contemplation. Because of this intensity of living the Christian life and a strong aversion toward privileges and entitlements, leaders and founder of the early religious communities were vehemently opposed to the acceptance

• f clerics into their numbers. Of Saint Pachomius, the father of

cenobitism, the following was written in the fourth century:

Our father Pachomius did not want any clerics in his monasteries, for fear of jealousy and vainglory. Very often, indeed, he would talk to them on this subject; “It is better not to seek after such a thing in

• ur community, lest this should be an occasion for strife, envy,

jealousy and even schisms to arise in a large number of monks, contrary to God’s will.

A century later, Cassian, another pioneer of religious life, gave the following counsel to his followers:

Brethren, do not let yourself be drawn to the diabolical temptation

• f seeking clerical office out of a desire to bring spiritual help to
• thers.

Of course, there were important pioneers of the Consecrated Life like Saints Basil and Augustine – who were both bishops – and Saint Benedict – a layman – who allowed the acceptance of clerics in monasteries, and even the ordination of its monks. However, even in these cleric-friendly monasteries, the founders emphasized that the primordial obligation for the ordained lies in fidelity to the monastic

• calling. Saint Benedict himself permitted the ordination of monks with

the following stringent counsel:

5

Let the one who is ordained beware of self-exaltation or pride. Let him not presume to do anything except what is commanded him by the Abbot, knowing that he is so much the more subject to the discipline of the Rule. Nor should he by reason of his priesthood forget the obedience and the discipline required by the Rule, but make ever more and more progress towards God.

But this reservation against ordaining monks gradually reversed during the Middle Ages. By the 9th century, emperors and popes intensely promoted the ordination of monks so much so that by the start

• f the second millennium it became the normative practice.

As the centuries passed, the tension between Consecrated Life and Clerical Leadership became more obvious, especially as a result of the increased tendency among bishops and priests to see themselves as divinely foreordained to be at the top of the church’s structure. Founders

• f religious congregations – even those who were seemingly subservient

to the hierarchy – were for the most part aware of this tendency. It would be wrong for us to generalize that they, as Catholics of a different time, simply accepted the burden imposed on their shoulders. The truth is far more complex than that for Founders understood that the awesome responsibility given to them by the Spirit cannot be fulfilled without the leadership of the Church. Thus, one can say that in spite their difficulties with bishops and the compromises they have to make, Founders were ecclesial-minded. They were not naïve to the abuses of power and even fought these. In the end, however, they understood that they belong to the whole church and have to find some way of relating effectively for with the church’s hierarchy for the sake of founding and stabilizing the religious family they were called to found.

6

• At this point, let us pause for a while and reflect on the following

questions: 1) How have I personally experienced and lived this conflict between Religious Life and Clerical Leadership? 2) In my opinion, could we as Xaverians today live our life form and mission apart from or alongside the clerical leadership? Please explain. We will resume the presentation after you have done your personal reflection and sharing.

7

Welcome back. The Second Vatican Council rightly proposed that any work at congregational renewal should always take into consideration the spirit and special aims of the founder for the members of his congregation. It is for this reason that we will now look at Theodore James Ryken and examine his own thoughts about Xaverian Ecclesiality. There is a general tendency among us Xaverians to dismiss Ryken as an ultramontanist, that is a conservative nineteenth-century Catholic who was totally loyal to the authoritarian popes of that period. There is no doubt that his loyalties were with Pius IX, at that moment in history when European nation-states and monarchies were openly breaking away from the control and influence of the papacy. Given that the pope was being assaulted by other temporal powers, it was easy to deduce where the sentiments of hard-core Catholics like Ryken would have

• gone. But such was the case for most founders and religious at that time,

especially those who understood that the calls of the Spirit bade them to go ad gentes. In being missioned to the world, they understood that they were to work at the behest of the “pontifex universalis” and not of one diocesan bishop, influential as he or his diocese may be. Thus, Ryken’s fervent desire for his congregation to receive pontifical right should not be simplistically seen as a manifestation of his ultramontanism. At its core was a strong conviction that a “band of brothers” who would mission beyond Belgium should rightfully serve under the church’s universal pastor. Ryken knew all too well that diocesan bishops could circumscribe a congregation’s vocation for the universal church. This was at the heart

• f his conflict with Bishop Martin Spalding. The tension was a

8

manifestation which reflected the history of religious life in the early and mid-nineteenth century. Rome was reluctant to recognize the canonical character of non-cloistered communities who were professing simple

• vows. As a result, many founders and general superiors found

themselves in conflict with local ordinaries who were arbitrarily claiming as their own a religious community established in their

• dioceses. It was for this reason that St. Julie Billiart moved her Sisters of

Notre Dame generalate from France to Belgium. It also brought about the subdivisions of many German congregations of Franciscan and Dominican Sisters in the United States. In some cases, a local ordinary would mandate the cessation of communications between religious communities in his dioceses and their motherhouses, even by threatening excommunication. Ryken deeply understood that freedom from the totalizing control of a bishop was essential were his brotherhood to fulfill its missionary

• vocation. It was for this reason that he was baffled – and perhaps even

alarmed – by one part of the letter of Bishop Spalding in late January or early February 1853 which counseled him to “adapt your institute to the country.” The issue of autonomy became a more immediate issue for Ryken when that summer, just a few months before the departure of the first brothers for America, Bishop Johannes van Hooijdonk of Breda stopped the Brothers of St Aloysius Gonzaga in his diocese from getting directives from their motherhouse in Oudenbosch and refashioned them as his own congregation (Brothers of the Immaculate Conception of Breda). This was the context behind the letter that Ryken sent to Bishop Malou:

9

Monsignor Spalding says that we should seek his advice – something which he al-ready insisted with me and which he even put in writing. This insistence on seeking his advice makes me fear that difficulties will emerge. In fact, I do not understand how he sees the seeking of advice. Usually when people desire that advice be sought, they also desire that the advice be

• followed. In general, it is no longer an advice but rather an order, in

particular when the advice is given in a forceful manner. Some priests and

• ther people might make plans in our regard and suggest these to the Bishop.

They will ask this way, especially if they know that we are obliged to follow the plans, proposal, and interventions of the Bishop concerning the government and regulation of the Congregation. Yet, the Congregation will only flourish and produce great fruit if it is concerned with the preservation of its vocation which, it seems to me, has been proven by clear signs and consists, I think, in laboring at the formation

• f a good and Christian coming generation for the whole Church. In order to

reach that lofty purpose, it seems to me that it is most necessary, within the limits of recognition and respect for the canonical rights of the Bishop, that we have freedom to act, so that we can work and live according to the spirit

• f our foundation and Constitution; that we are not hampered nor that our

hands are bound; that we do not pursue the well-being of one diocese and are not obliged by a bishop, who is usually only concerned with the good of his diocese, to bind ourselves to the local well-being. If we did so, we might forego the vocation of the Congregation and of its individual members.2

Malou wrote to Spalding about Ryken’s request and asked his fellow bishop to extend to the brothers coming to his diocese his “support and generous and enlightened cooperation” so that “they could succeed in their important and difficult mission.” Spalding may not have liked the way Ryken questioned his authority before Malou. This may explain

2 Letter of T.J. Rjken, Brugge, to Bishop Jan Baptist Malou, Brugge, 28 June 1854. CFX Generalate Archives, KADOC (Leuven), 3.5.1.3.

10

why on the arrival of the brothers in Louisville on 11 August, he “gave them his blessings and nothing more”3 It was not the first time that Ryken asserted the need for a government centered on the office of the superior general and free from any outside clerical sway. In 1845, amid the ever-growing financial burdens in the “Years of Hunger” on his brotherhood, Ryken sought ways and means to save his congregation from complete extinction. He was even willing to leave Brugge and move anywhere that his young community could receive better pay in their teaching work. However, even for the sake of survival, Ryken would not think of surrendering anything of the authority, spirit and purpose of his brotherhood to

• utsiders, even well-intentioned priests. In Hasselt, Ryken was

negotiating with the dean of the parish about the establishment of a pay- school which the brothers would run. But in spite of the promising beginnings of the project, it became clear to Ryken that the dean sought to interfere with the guidance not only of the school but also of his

• congregation. Thus he wrote in confidence to Francis Xavier Dondorff

to seek the intervention of Fr. Constant Bogaerts, the diocesan school inspector:

When you go to Hasselt, tell Rev. Bogaerts as follows, that I feel from the words of the Rev. Dean that it is his plans to have our affair much under his administration, and to do away with our activity for America…. In this I see a danger not to be able to follow our first intention, spirit, and vocation, which I could not allow at all…. In the meantime we reach our purpose of winning

3 Julian Ryan, Men and Deeds: The Xaverian Brothers in America (New York: MacMillan, 1930), 18.

11

time and to make our Rules and Constitutions so stable that they cannot be easily changed by an outsider.4

Ryken grasped the wideness of the frontier that the Spirit intended for the congregation. For that reason, he was most unwilling to compromise this mission. The Hasselt project never materialized, but others would eventually be given to the care of his brothers. Ryken willingly placed himself and the congregation at the service of the local churches through their clerical leadership, even though if his poor French – the language

• f the Belgian clergy and upper-class – did not necessarily make him a

welcome guest in their circles. But he was steadfast in his belief that his brothers are to mission ad gentes and never let go of this vision despite his dedication to the local churches. The mission in America would not be launched until the middle of the nineteenth century. While waiting for the realization of this congregational vocation, he sent his brothers to England, a suitable place to further the work of evangelizing marginalized youth and to hone the language skills of possible missionaries to the United States. By the time he sent his brothers to England, Ryken could already communicate to its bishops, with both respect and resolve, the non-negotiables of the brotherhood:

The English Brothers when incorporated in the Society will be bound to the English mission. I wish to retain the power of recalling any brother in extraordinary circumstances. If your Lordships refuse to the Superior a freedom of control over the Brothers it would have an injurious effect on the latter and materially impair the salutary influences of the former. Their

4 Letter of T.J. Ryken, Brugge, to Francis Xavier Dondorff, Sint-Truiden, 29 September 1843. Copy boek der brieven, 1.

12

minds would be distracted between two powers and thus their vocation would be endangered, the spirit of obedience which they had acquired in the parent house would be weakened and their zeal and ardor in the cause would surely be cooled. And thus many scandals might arise to the detriment of religion and education. A Superior from the knowledge he possesses of all the members of the Society and who thoroughly understands all its workings, must be admitted the best judge of all matters which concern it.5

Two years later, the parish priest of Hull inquired the viability of separating the Brothers in England from Brugge. Clear in his vision, the Founder responded:

To your… enquiry if a branch of the Society could be separated from the parent stock I beg leave to reply that no circumstances could induce me to consent to such a separation. To whatever part of the world the members may be sent or however numerous they may become it is absolutely necessary that they remain under the direction of one general head. Until the Order has received the approbation of Rome we must continue to be dependent on the Bishop of Bruges and the Superior of the Society. When that approbation is obtained it will of course be subject to the Holy See and the Superior of the order.6

Nearly seventy years later, the English brothers, then unable to communicate with the generalate in Brugge because of the First World War, would themselves uphold the vision of the founder when they resisted the plans of Bishop Peter Amigo of Southwark to establish them as a separate congregation.

5 Letter of T.J. Ryken, Brugge, to the Bishops of England, 03 July 1848. Copy boek der brieven, 4. 6 Letter of T.J. Ryken, Brugge, to Rev. Michael Trappes, Hull (England), 17 August 1850. Copy boek der brieven, 5.

13

The above discussion may enlighten us about the communion coordinate

• f our charism. We are a congregation called by the Spirit through our

Founder to be at the service of the universal church. In saying that, it should also be clear that this universal church has a hierarchical structure so integrated into it that none of us can just wish it away. Ryken placed himself at the service of God through a hierarchy of bishops and clergymen who either supported him wholeheartedly, or belittled him as an ambitious foreigner with little education and poor communication skills, or – as in the case of the celebrated Jesuit missionary Fr. Pierre- Jean De Smet – were thoroughly hostile to him. Ryken knew he would never have a hierarchy completely in accord with him and the inspiration entrusted to him, but that did not matter for him. What did matter was that the brotherhood remain true to its “first intention, spirit and vocation.” He knew, however, that this could not be fulfilled if he were to shut the congregation away from the church’s leadership. Because of this he interrelated with them – both those who were for him and those against him. He would listen to their counsel, mostly heeding their

• advice. But he would also be forthright and uncommonly brave when his

dignity and that of his brothers were assaulted. This was unambiguously demonstrated when he spoke the following words “in a strong and firm tone” before the dismissive Jesuit Provincial Fr. Peter Van Lil: “God…is…not…obliged…to….give…an… account… to… man…. for…what… He…does.”7 Even when he struggled to let go of the brotherhood in 1860, Ryken must have understood at some point that the congregation was not his own creation but that of the Spirit. The charism

7 T. J. Ryken, “Beschrijving van den tesamen handel die ik ondergetekende gehouden heb, met den Ew Pater van Kerckhove,” (Description of the dealings that I, the undersigned, have had with Father van Kerckhove) 1871. CFX Generalate Archives, KADOC (Leuven), 1.1.5.

14

• f the congregation was not for him or his brothers to keep, but one that

has to be shared with the Church – through and in spite of its clerical leadership – so that its mandate from the Spirit could be realized for the sake of the renewal of the People of God.

• At this point, let us pause for a while and reflect on the following

questions: 1) On looking back at the words of the Founder, what is your impression about Ryken’s ways of relating with Clerical Leadership? 2) Do you think that the way he dealt with Clerical leadership is instructive for us Xaverians today? Why or why not? 3) Given the differences between the church today and that during Ryken’s times, what is your opinion about Ryken’s vision of a centralized leadership for his congregation? We will resume the presentation after you have done your personal reflection and sharing.

15

Welcome back. During the decades that followed the Second Vatican Council, the deep-seated tension between Religious Life and Clerical Leadership became more intensified. After years of somehow quietly accepting a perceived subservient position vis-à-vis the Clerical Leadership, Religious found themselves at a very important realization – that, according to the Second Vatican Council, “the religious state…. does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the church. Nevertheless, it belongs inseparably to her life and holiness.” (LG, 44) In so saying, the Council acknowledged the very uniqueness of the Consecrated Life and affirmed that it related to the Clerical Leadership not in terms of submission but in terms of communion. Thus both ecclesial realities are supposed to be mutually supportive of each other and collaborate with each other under the guidance of the Spirit. Given this affirmation, however, there were many of us who began to dismiss the Clerical Leadership – for reasons that could be well- justified – as helplessly broken, inflexible and deaf. Matters turned worse for many during the long pontificate of Pope John Paul II when many truly felt the dismissiveness of several bishops toward religious congregations that were more forward-looking and their favor towards those that were externally traditional and thoroughly docile to their

• bidding. It was a sad time, indeed, a period when many bishops and

higher clerics forgot the following bidding from the postconciliar document Mutuae Relationes:

All pastors, mindful of the apostolic admonition never to be a “dictator

• ver any group that is put in [their] charge, but [to] be an example that the

whole flock can follow” (1 Pt 5:3), will rightly be aware of the primacy of life in the Spirit. This demands that they be at the same time leaders and members

16

• f the People of God; truly fathers, but also brothers; teachers of the faith, but

also fellow disciples of Christ; responsible for the perfection of the faithful, but also true witnesses of their personal sanctification.”

Unfortunately, however, there were those among us in the Consecrated Life who saw themselves – and every religious – as mandated by God to prophesy against the clerical structure of the Church altogether… that it was part of our common calling to expose the arrogance of the clerical leadership and do away with its structure. For these fellow religious, that was what being “prophetic” solely meant. Unfortunately, the arrogance they condemned could also be leveled against them as they made themselves into self-appointed prophets. Good-willed, yet horribly misguided, they forgot that all of us who are part of the People of God – be they religious, clerics, or lay – are by our baptism called to be prophets. We, consecrated men, are not the only

• nes called to be heralds of the Truth and we cannot and should not

arrogate that role as if it is ours by right. In a far more desirable situation, all of us constitute the Church truly understand that although the mission of the People of God is one – that is, to be a visible Sacrament of the love and mercy of God for all women and men – we approach and live our responsibilities differently from each other. The distinctiveness between Clerical Leadership and Religious Life is very clear, although contingent, and does affect both the exercise of the pastoral ministry of bishops and priests, and the particular life form and duties of religious. Clearly, given these differences, it is easier for us consecrated men and our clerical leaders to emphasize the points that differentiate us from each other. But what is seemingly the deeper call of the Second Vatican Council is for us to come to a clear acceptance and appreciation for the differences in our gifts for the Church and the world, instead of using these as means to divide us and distance ourselves from each other.

17

We have already noted that the Council affirmed that while the religious state of life is part of the life and holiness of the Church, it does not belong to its hierarchical structure. Religious congregations, primarily those that have pontifical status, possess an autonomous character that the ecclesiastical leadership (universal and local) must recognize, keep and protect:

The Church is concerned that Institutes should grow and develop in accordance with the spirit of their founders and foundresses, and their own sound traditions. Consequently, each Institute is recognized as having a rightful autonomy, enabling it to follow its own discipline and to keep intact its spiritual and apostolic patrimony. It is the responsibility of local Ordinaries to preserve and safeguard this autonomy.

The “distance” that each religious congregation establishes in its relationship with the ecclesiastical leadership is among the most subtle aspects of congregational charisms, especially in non-clerical institutes. In fact, this dimension can significantly differentiate one religious congregation from another. Religious congregations should not be expected to relate in the same way with the Clerical Leadership. However, although they are not in a submissive relation with the hierarchy, it would be wrong for Religious Congregations to isolate themselves from the Clerical Leadership and see themselves as totally autonomous. There will always be the temptation for consecrated men and women to have fewer dealings and associations with the church’s

• leadership. But our canonical autonomy should not be construed as

giving us the license to operate at will without “thinking with the mind

• f the Church and thus disregarding it completely. What is the sense

then of being part of the Catholic Church if this were to happen?

18

Founders like Ryken clearly understood that they were part of a Church – holy but comprising of imperfect people, with clerical leaders whose vision of the Church and understanding of the Gospel may be less desirable and less in keeping with the biddings of Christ. Not a few of them, like Ryken, had to suffer in the hands of bishops who wanted ultimately wanted to control the inner life of their congregations. However, we must never forget, that we as a congregation had been blessed with the kindness and understanding of successive bishops of Brugge who, despite their questions about Ryken, were able to discern that the brotherhood was truly unique in its calling, willed by God to exist for the sake of the life of the Church, and willing to let go of their total control over its jurisdiction so that it can be a brotherhood for the whole church. What our history informs us, then, is that we Xaverians should never see ourselves as being separate from the Clerical Leadership of the

• Church. However, we need to truly be aware of what Ryken understood

as “the congregation’s first intention, spirit and vocation,” be faithful to it, and present it to the clerical leaders of our parishes, dioceses ad the universal church as our unique gift for the fulfillment of the Reign of God in the here and now.

19

• We end this presentation by asking you to reflect and share on the

following questions: 1) Was there any particular point in this discussion that strongly moved me – whether positively or negatively? Why am I affected by it? 2) Which of the ideas conveyed at the last part of this discussion concern me most as a challenge to the way we are called to relate to the Church’s clerical hierarchy? Why? Don’t forget to send the results of your reflection and discussion to the Coordinating Committee for the 27th General Chapter. Thank you very much for your active participation today. We hope to see you in our next presentation. Apostolic Ministry in the Third Millennium