Jesuits -- Periodicals

Jesuits -- Periodicals

Monasticism and religious orders -- Periodicals

City of Saint Louis (Mo.), http://www.geonames.org/4407084

http://cdm17321.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getthumbnail/collection/rfr/id/497

er the pat7 tern of the primitive Church of Acts 2 and 4. The com-munity of lay monks that he organized shortly after his conversion had as its model, his early biographer Pos-sidius tells us, the "common life" (societas) lived "under the holy Apostles" in Acts. The monastic organi~zation of his clergy in the bishop’s house at Hippo had as its purpose, Augustine himself explains, "that, as far as we can, we may imitate the saints of whom the book of the Acts of the Apostles speaks," and he quotes Acts 4.is In his letter to the community of women mentioned above, he begins: "This is what we prescribe that you observe in the monastery in which you live. In the first place, since this is the reason for your coming together, you must live in unity in the house, and you must have a single soul and a single heart turned toward God. You must not speak among yourselves of personal goods, but rather have all things in common." 10 He continues: "It is thus that you read in the Acts of the Apostles that ’all things were common unto them, and distribution was made to everyone according as he had need.’ "20 These texts of Acts depicting the life of the primitive Church haunted Augustine.21 He returns to them no less than fifty-three times in his different works. An examina- 18 C. Butler, Benedictine Monachism (2nd ed.

London: Longmans, 1924), pp. 16-7

J. Gribomont, "Saint Basile," in Thdologie de la vie monastique, p. 113. x7 p. Salmon, The Breviary through the Centuries (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1962), pp. 130-1, footnote 4. xs For citations and references see M. Verheijen, "Saint Augustin," in Thdologie de la vie monastique, pp. 201-2~ a9 Ibid., pp. 203-4. ~See the entire letter in Saint Augustine, Letters, trans. Sister Wilfrid Parsons, v. 5 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1956), pp.- 38-51. The passage cited occurs on pp, 41-2. ~ For most of the following statistics and details see Verheijen, "Saint Augustin," pp. 204--12. + + 4- Religious . Community VOLUME 25, 1966 tion of these passages shows that he recognized in this vignette of the early Church a picture of the community of love which Christians on earth should be, made one in Christ by the presence of the Holy Spirit, Himself infinite love--a unity which is at the same time an antici-pation and beginning of the fuller community of love which the Church will be throughout eternity. The life of communities of monks, clerical or lay, and the life of communities of virgins was simply the realization of this ideal by these people in a way not possible for the gen-erality of Christians. Whet/we examine early European monasticism, we dis-cover a heavy Egyptian influence. All over ancient Christian Europe the eremitical life was known and praised. So was the cenobitic. The great organizer of western monasticism concerned himself only with draw-ing up a rule for cenobites. He organized and modified. Up to the time of St. Benedict, Abbot Cuthbert Butler explains, monks, though looked upon as bound, whether by vows or without them, irrevocably to the practice of the monastic life, so that to abandon it was considered an apostasy, still were not tied to a particular monastery or community, but were allowed with little difficulty to pass from one house to another. St Benedict’s most special and tangible contribution to the de-velopment of monasticism was the introduction of the vow of stability .... [By this means] he put a stop to such liberty of passage from monastery to monastery and incorporated the monk by his profession in the community of his own monastery.. St Benedict thus bound the monks of a monastery together into a permanent family, united by bonds that lasted for life.’~ ÷ ÷ 4- Thomas Barrosse, .S.C. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS In examining his Rule the casual reader may feel he finds relatively little beyond Chapter 63 (on the order of the community) about the relations of the monks with one another. Several points, however, deserve attention. It is quite clear that all the "brothers"--that is, all the monks--have a voice in the running of the community. The abbot must submit all important matters for the ad-vice of all the brothers, and in even minor matters he must get the advice of at least the older members of the community (Chapter 3). It is clear too that the common life means not only living in the same monastery and praying and eating together but also having all material goods in common--hence, a really extensive sharing of life. In this context the Rule cites Acts 4 three times over.23 .~o ~B Iunt lCerh,a Bpetenresd 3ic3ti n(we hMeothnearc hmisomn,k psp s. h2o7u-8ld

have anything of their own), 34 (whether all should receive necessities in equal measure), and 55 (on the brothers’ clothing and footwear). The Benedictine Rule (Prologue) declares as its pur-pose to establish a "school of the Lord’s service"--not, however, in the sense of a place one leaves (for example, for eremitical life) when he has learned what is taught there. It is written (as the Prologue goes on to say) for those who will "persevere in the monastery until death." The expression "school" occurs of the Church itself in Christian literature of the patristic period (for example: the school of Christ as opposed to the schools of the philosophers).~4 It is not at all unlikely that it is meant to designate the monastery simply as a community where the Christian life can be lived progressively bett6rmand, of course, the Christian life is radically altruistic. The original Benedictine community was by no means closed in completely on itself. Chapter 53 of the Rule (on the reception of guests) has made BenediCtine hospi-tality proverbial. The monks’, readiness to evangelize the countryside around their monasteries (for example, at Monte Cassino) and to go on foreign missions (for ex~- ample, Augustine and his companions, who went to England at Gregory the Great’s behest) as well as to open monastic schools shows that they were disposed to work for the larger Christian community both outside their monasteries and in themY~ In short, in this respect the Benedictine community resembled the Basilian--Bene-dict says (Rule, Chapter 73) he owes much to his eastern predecessor--and even surpass~ed it. We may sum up what we have seen so far. Th~ phe-nomenon we call religious life originated in fourth century Egypt where Anthony and Pachomius gave as-cetics an organized way of life to follow. It assumed two forms: the eremitic or solitary form (Anthony’s) ’ and the cenobitic or community form (Pachomius’). The latter developed remarkably--perhaps independently of Egypt --in Cappadocia under Basil. It also found a great fifth century African organizer in Augustine and a sixth century European organizer in Benedict. Pachomius, Basil, and Augustine found the model of what they ,d~re trying to create in the idealized sketch of the primitive community of faith and fraternal love which Luke pre-sents in Acts 2 and 4. Though the inspir~ition of this vision is not so evident in B~nedict, his Rule, by its introduction of stability, mdr~ effectively provided for ~ permanent community in which the Christian life could be lived to the full, Now let us ask briefly about the other three.elements which today, with the common life, form the canonical -°4 See La R~gle du Maitre, ed. Adalbert de Vogii~, v. 1 (Paris: Cerf, 1964), pp. 115-6. = Butler, Benedictine Mona~hism, pp. 389-90, nuances this state-ment. Religious ~ommunity VOLUME 25, 1966 ÷ Thomas Barrosse, REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 980 minimum for the religious state: poverty, chastity, and obedience. How were they viewed by the great organizers? It has been customary for centuries to look upon these three--religious poverty, celibacy, and obedience--as an asceticism meant to counter the obstacles to love, in which, of course, the perfection .of the Christian life consists,zn Today, when it has become the style to dis-parage asceticism, this conception has lost appeal. We must recognize quite frankly, however, that in the early centuries of organized monastic life celibacy and poverty and obedience were repeatedly presented as an asceticism --that is, as a tangible expression of that readiness to leave all for Christ which we can call detachment and which is the necessary condition for love. But--what is of more importance for us at the moment--they were also looked upon as being in themselves expressions of love and means to create the ideal Christian community. The case of poverty is clearest. It is true that we can find numerous passages in the sources we have been con-sidering in which the abandonment of material posses-sions appears as a renunciation--a giving up--of material goods. It appears as a means to cast off "anxiety for the morrow" (Mt 6:24). It is presented as getting rid of one’s goods preliminary to the following of Christ (Mt 19:21). But even in the case of the anchorites--for example, Anthony himself--disposing of one’s goods usually takes the form of selling them to give the proceeds to the poor in accord with Jesus’ counsel to the rich young man (Mr 19:21).27 Even more, after the initial renunciation, the cenobite’s possession of anything as his own is r~gularly exchtded by our sources as being opposed to a truly common life. Citations from Acts 2 and 4 freque.ntly serve to exclttde private possessions precisely as infidelity to full community of life. Many of the passages examined above will illustrate this if they are reexamined. Let us, instead, examine one other. St Augustine in his treatise on the Work of Monks indicates both renunciation and community as involved in monastic poverty.~s First, renunciation. He writes: Let us suppose a person is converted to this life from a life of luxury, and that he is afflicted with no physical infirmity.,Are we so incapable of understanding the sweetness of Christ that we do not know how great a swelling of deeply rooted pride is healed when, after the removal of the superfluities with ~See John Cassian, Conference 1, Chapter 6 (in Gibson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, v. I1, p. 297)

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae 2-2, q.186, a.7. ~rAthanasius, LiIe o] Anthony, Chapters 2 and 3, in Keenan, Early Christian Biographies, pp. 135-6. ~ Chapter 25, translated in Saint Augustine, Treatises on Various Subjects, trans. Sister Mary Sarah Muldowney (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1952), p. 377. which his spirit was fatally possessed, the humility of the worker does not refuse to perform lowly labors to obtain the few supplies which remain necessary for this natural life? Secondly, community. He continues: If, however, a person is converted to this life from poverty, let him not consider that he is doing merely what he used to do, if, turning from the love of increasing his own private fortune, however little, and no longer seeking what things are his own but rather those of Jesus’ Christ, he has devoted him-self to the charity of common life, intending to live in com-panionship with those who have one heart and one soul in God, so that no one calls anything his own but all things are held in common. Celibacy, of course, was practiced by Christians from the New Testament period itself. The motive St. Paul assigns for it in 1 Cor 7:35 is contemplative: to provide "undivided attention to the Lord." The motive Jesus as-signs in Mt 19:12: "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (which means "for the sake of the reign of God") can be considered apostolic: that is, celibacy to devote oneself wholly to the spread of God’s reign by the preach-ing of the gospel. After all, injunctions to go out to pro-claim the kingdom without delaying even to bury one’s father or to take leave of one’s relatives occur in the Gospel (Lk 9:57-62

see Mt 8:19-22). Among the Pachomians, Theodore says: "Let us pre-serve the gift [a reference perhaps to the ’gift’ of celibacy mentioned in 1 Cor 7:7 or possibly Mt 19:11] which has come to us beyond the deserts of our efforts. Let. us preserve the law [of the koin6nla], each one of us being a subject of edification for his neighbor." And a recent commentator remarks: The edification of one’s neighbor--which means, immedi-ately, of one’s brothers--is an essential element of the law on which the koin6nla rests. The realization of this law can-not be attained except when the bonds of purely natural love ’according to the flesh’ have been broken and all the brothers bound together in a spiritual love. From this source come repeated regulations prescribing separation from one’s family and controlling relations witl~ those who are related by blood.-~ Basil too--one more text will have to suffice--sees the renunciation of one’s own family--and even more of a family of orie’s own--aS a means to be "brother" equally to all members of the brotherhood. He writes: ÷ Superiors should not allow those who have been perma- ÷ nently admitted to the community to be distracted in any + way--by allowing them either to leave the company of their brethren and live in private on the pretext of visiting their Religious relatives or to be burdened with the responsibility of caring Community for their relatives according to the flesh. The Scripture abso-lutely forbids the words "mine" and "thine" to be uttered ~ Bacht, "Pakh6me,’" pp. 67-8. VOLUME 25, 1966 among the. brethren, saying: "And the multitude of believers had but one heart and ~ne soul

neither did anyone say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own." The par-ents or brothers of a membe

of the community, therefore, if they live piously should be treated by all the brethren as fathers or other relatives possessed in common: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Fathe~ that is in Heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother," says the Lord. In our opinion, moveover, the care of these persons would devolve upon the superiOr of the community.so + + + Thomas Barrosse, C.S.C. REVIEWFOR RELIGIOUS We may find this position somewhat extreme by our standards. The basic understanding of celibacy is what makes the text important to us at the moment, and that basic understanding is clear: the. foregoing of family re-lationships is .the means to effect a more perfect com-munity of life with a larger number of fervent Ghristians. Obedience is more difficult. The anchorite placed him-self under a master or teacher to be trained in overcoming self-will but especially to be educated to the ascetical life. Obedience was an asceticism or a disciple-master re-lationship. The’ arrangement was voluntary. The leader-ship of communities was Charismatic: Pachomius’ virtue explains the following he had, and after his death his community almost disintegrated more than once until his disciples could agree that the successor was equipped to guide them as Pachomius had been. For Basil, the role of the superior (or the superiors--since there can be several in one "brotherhood"---qq. 26 f.) is to direct and guide the individual "in everything." So too in Augustine (Letter 211). The superior, in short, appears as a sort of rnagister. ’Before thee introduction of stability, the monk could move to another community if he was not satisfied with the gu, idance he was given. When the community became fixed and the superior-ship more institutional, the situation changed somewhat. It~must be admitted that superiors were elected--presum-ably for their leadership qualities. But if the choice was limited to members of the community or other considera-tions Anfluenced the voting, obedience might possibly place a monk under a poor master, and remaining in-definitely under his authority would then be nothing more than ~an indefinitely prolonged asceticism. But perhaps we have missed an important aspect of the superior’s role more implied than explicitly stated in our sources--that is, the position of the superior as the center of unity for the community. From the end of the very first Christian century we have a heavy emphasis on the head of the local Christian community, the bishop, as the foctts of the Church’s unity, This seems to be the so Question 32, translated by Wagner in St. Basil, Ascetical Wor. ks, p. 295. meaning of Ignatius of Antioch’s axiom: "Where the bishop is, there is the church." 81 We must reflect for a moment on this third and perhaps principal dimension of authority as a necessity for any and all community and of obedience as being first and directly the insertion of oneself into a community---or gift of oneself to a communitywand only secondarily and consequently the placing of oneself under a su-perior’s authority. The extent of any superior’s au-thority is determined by the nature of the community in which it is exercised. If the authority of superiors is so extensive in religious life, it is precisely because the gift we make of ourselves to the community is so extensive: we undertake the sharing of practically the whole of our lives with others--prayer, work, responsibilities, material goods, and so forth. How the authority is exercised--for example, by frequent peremptory commands or by dis-cussions in which a superior usually agrees with the con-sensus reached--is quite incidental to this aspect of re-ligious obedience (though it is less so, of course, to obedience as an asceticism). It might be pointed out parenthetically, however, that the way in which the highest (episcopal) authority was actually exercised in the patristic Church and the way Basil and Benedict speak of superiors exercising their attthority suggests a procedure closer to the second than to the first of these two extremes,a2 Looking ttpon obedience as being sub-stantially the gift of oneself to a community means look-ing upon it in a very ancient and traditional way and perceiving it as an influence over the individual religious in his whole community life, even when the superior actually intervenes only rarely. We have been all too brief in our consideration of poverty, celibacy, and obedience. But perhaps we have 21 See V. Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale, 1960), pp. 80-7, 192-8, 214, and 256-7. Ignatius phrases it slightly differently in his letter to the Smyrneans 8, 2. Why else is nothing to be done "apart from" the bishop and only that Eu-charist is to be considered valid over which he presides or someone named by him (Ad Smyrn. 8, 1)? He is certainly not thinking of a "power of orders" to confect sacraments or of a "power of jurisdic-tion" if we are to judge from the main thrust of his arguments. There is no church apart from the bishop because he is its "center of unity," to use the phrase Vatican II applies to him in its Decree on the Missionary Activity o~ the Church, n. 30 (just after urging all missionary workers to have but one heart and one soul in accord with Acts 4:32). Interestingly, the Rule of Taiz~ (Taiz~: Presses de Taiz~, 1965), p. 55, opens its treatment of the prior (which is its treatment of obedience) with a brief paragraph on the need for nnity

then it explains: "The prior focuses the u6ity of the commu-nity." ~See Y. Congar, "The Hierarchy as Service," in his Power and Poverty. in the Church (London: Chapman, 1964), pp. 15-79, espe-cially from p. 40 on. + ÷ ÷ Religi~s Community 98-3 ÷ ÷ ÷ Thomas Ba~rosse, C.~.C. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 984 spent enough time on them to show that all the essential elements of canonical "religious life as we know it in the Church today can be conceived of just as the cenobitic life as a whole was at its origins: as part of the attempt to create an ideal Christian community on the model of that idyllic picture of the primitive Apostolic Church which St. Luke presents in the opening chapters of Acts. That the apostolates of the active communities can be fitted into this picture too should be clear from what we have seen of the openness to the needs of the Church of their times exhibited by the Basilian, Augustinian, and Benedictine communities. To show that this concept has not been lost between the origins and our own day, let us conclude with two texts. The Pontificale Romanum, dating substantially from the Middle Ages, contains a ceremony for the profession of an abbot--to be used before he is blessed in case a novice or someone not a member of the order in question should be elected. At the end of the Ceremony, the pre-siding bishop gives a short explanation of what he has done in accepting the profession: Although all of us through th~ grace of baptism are brothers in Christ and have one Father in heaven if, to the best of our ability, we do what he commands, without any doubt we are most closely united when we join ourselves to one another in ~common] prayer and mutual service just as we read the holy tathers in the primitive Church, who had but one heart anal one soul, did. Many of them, their hearts inflamed with the love of Christ, sold their posSessions and material belongings, gathered the proceeds together, and brought them in joy (o t~e Apostles. The Apostles took these proceeds and distributed them to all in accord with the needs of each. So it is that this man [newly professed], under God’s inspiration and encouraged by their example, desires to be joined to the community of the religious of [this order]. We grant him

where it exists we know we have been taken from death to life (see 1 Jn 3:14). In fact, brotherly unity shows that Christ has come (see Jn 13:35

17:21)

from it results great apostolic influence.~ ~* Translated by J. Gallagher in W. Abbott (ed.), The Documents o] Vatican II (New York: Guild Press, 1966), p. 477. + Community VOLUM~ 25, ~966 985 GUSTAVE MARTELET, S.J. A Theological Reflection on Perfectae Caritatis 4- Gustave Martelet, s.J., is a member of the theological fac-ulty at 4 Montd’e de Fourvi~re

Lyon, France. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 986 EvenS when considered in a rather general way, the decree on the proper renewal of religious life immediately suggests a double series of remarks: the one on the bond that unites religious life to the mystery of Christ, and the other on the adaptation of religious life to the needs of the Church and of the world. I. Religious Life and the Mystery of Christ One of the merits of the decree is that it insists, and rightly so, on the close bond between religious life and the mystery of Christ. Although quite elementary in real-ity, this outlook is also partly new: past treatment of the subject has been far too reticent on this point. By making a distinction, in somewhat summary fashion at times, be-tween the way of the precepts for those regarded simply as the "faithful" and the way of the counsels for rrien and women striving for perfection, there was grave risk of forgetting the Lord’s command to all the baptized to be "perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48). The natural result of such an attitude, which failed to recognize the spiritual depths of the evangelical precepts, was a kind of imprisonment springing from emphasis on the juridical elements involved in the institutionalized practice of the counsels--think of poverty and obedience, for example. In the proper directing of religious life the role of canon law, of course, remains incontestable, but on condition, too, that it never conceal the mystery of Christ without whom there would be neither precept nor counsel. Furthermore, the real depth of religious life cannot be reduced purely and simply to questions of * This article appeared originally in French under the title, "R~flexion th~ologique sur le d~cret ’Perfectae caritatis,’ " in Vie consacrde, v. 38 (1966), pp. 32-46. The translation was made by . Sister Mary Andrew Doyle, S.U., Marygrove

Kingston, New York 12401. canonical formulae any more than the precepts of our Lord can be reduced to the natural law alone, or, on an-other plane, any more than the mysteries of faith can be reduced to simple problems of general metaphysics. The mystery of Christ’s person, for example, or that of the Eucharist, could never culminate in the fact that the human nature of Jesus subsists in a created supposit, or that the eucharistic species are accidents d~prived of a subject of inherence. It is likewise for a proper under-standing of religious life. One can deliberate over the degree Of solemnity that should surround pronouncement of vows so that they may produce their effect on the papal character of the cloister, or discuss conditions under which some leading a religious life constitute an order and others only a congregation. In any case, such ques-tions ought never to be considered as truly decisive. In line with this thought, ’the decree on the proper renewal of religious life leaves such things purposely in the back-ground so as to emphasize, on the other hand, certain essential elements which are thus to take on renewed value in our eyes. Nevertheless, we must not expect the decree to be set forth as a treatise on spiritual theology: it is not necessary to do this. Closely linked, in explicit fashion, as ’far as doctrine is concerned, to the sixth chap-ter (on religious) of the Constitution, Lumen Gentium, the decree (1,1)1 does not replace it

in fact, it derives in-spiration from it

and, what is more, like the Constitu-tion it stresses the importance of theological, spiritual, disciplinary, and pastoral developments. It gives direction to the first of these which, at the moment, is the only one under consideration, doing so in a far more precise manner than is apparent at first sight. For example, although we do not find in the decree a study in detail on the Holy Spirit (there are four or five allusions to the Spirit in 1,2

2,7

8,4

14,1--which do not form a theology), it is still in complete fidelity to the mystery of the Spirit, without whose help "no one can say that Jesus is Lord" (1 Col 12:3), that the decree de-fines religious life as a "following of Christ." This expres-sion occurs five or six times in the body of the text

thus defined at the outset, it sets the tone for the whole docu-ment: "From the ve

Missouri Province of the Society of Jesus

none

Heartland Hub

English

full:001:http://cdm17321.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getthumbnail/collection/rfr/id/497