The following was written by Larry Cada, S.M., co-author of Shaping the Coming Age of Religious Life, Seabury Press, 1979.
The Future of the SM in the United States
by Lawrence Cada, SM
What is the future of the SM in the United States? Thirty years ago Ray Fitz and I were wondering about this question, when it was clear that the Society was undergoing large changes in the years following Vatican II. From 1817 to 1967 there had been a steady, year-by-year increase in SM membership; 1967 was the first year in the Society's history that the number of members dropped. That drop continued into the 70s. The number is still dropping, but not as sharply.
At the time, Ray and I were serving on the Formation Team of the Cincinnati Province. In 1971, we invited Dave Fleming to be the main speaker at a Province Formation Weekend in Dayton. He gave an excellent presentation in which he divided the history of religious life into five ages, each of which was separated from the next by a period of dramatic change during which a new paradigm of religious life replaced that of the preceding age. Each age lasted several centuries that were dominated by that age's reigning paradigm. Eventually, though, as history moved on, the paradigm proved inadequate and fell apart. One of the things that often happened at these past turning points in the history of religious life was that the total number of religious dropped and many religious orders went extinct. The most recent such turning point, according to Dave, was the time of the French Revolution.
Dave's explanation of the changes we were all experiencing in the SM in the United States was that we had entered into one of these periods of dramatic change. The old paradigm we had all known and loved was passing away. As in the past, the number of religious was plummeting, and many religious orders would disappear with the old paradigm. We were entering into a time of waiting for the birth pangs of a new paradigm. After a period of collapse, new orders were going to emerge which would disclose the main lines of some new paradigm that was going to dominate the coming age of religious life.
Dave's presentation had a dramatic impact on me. To verify his lucid explanation, I began to read up on the history of religious life in far greater depth than I had until then. I found out that there were indeed religious orders that had gone extinct (such as the Gilbertines and Williamites) and that the last time there had been a sharp drop in the number of religious was the French Revolution during Chaminade's lifetime. Ray and I put together an article about all these ideas, which was published in Review for Religious and later expanded into the book Shaping the Coming Age of Religious Life with the help of Tom Giardino, Gert Foley (SC), and Carol Lichtenberg (SNDdeN).
That was 30 years ago. Where do we stand today? In particular, where does the SM in the United States stand today? Our book treated the whole of religious life—worldwide, all religious orders, both men and women religious. When we focus on the SM in the US, it's clear that we follow the general pattern. Our numbers have diminished and are still dropping. Are we going to go extinct, like religious orders of the past did?
The old paradigm—the Paradigm of the 50s—is gone. Older Marianists among us still remember it. Back then there was a string of vibrant boys' high schools that stretched across the country from coast to coast, and even to Hawaii. These Marianist schools had a distinctive spirit of which we were genuinely proud. The SM world was a school world. Our schools matched the intellectual excellence of Jesuit schools in the same city where they were located. They competed successfully in athletic prowess with the best of their rivals. The faculty at these schools was made up almost entirely by members of the SM. Typically, 30 or 40 brothers and priests conducted the school with the assistance of two or three laymen. The Marianists all dressed in black. They lived in a faculty house next to the school. They followed a common daily timetable tailored to let them put in a full day's service in the school. They thought of themselves and were regarded by others as an elite. The prevailing theology of religious life held that the evangelical vows raised members of religious orders to a higher place in the church—higher even than the place of diocesan priests. Members of the SM did not gloat about this, but they believed it; and it contributed to the love they had for the Society and their willingness to dedicate a lifetime to its work—the running of a chain of top-notch American Catholic boys' high schools.
Today, many of these schools are still here. However, there are almost no members of the SM on their staffs. Quite a few of them have merged with nearby girls' schools. We have merged four provinces into one. There is a small number of new members joining the SM in the US, but all the signs seem to indicate that we are following the historical trend of decline along with almost all the other religious orders. Is there anything that gives us pause and permits us to not conclude that this hopeless trend of decline is our inevitable fate?
I think there is. Personally, I know that I do not feel hopeless. Recently I have found myself explaining to various persons and in various places why I don't feel negative about the future. For starters, I am quite encouraged by the conversations I have with the newest members of the SM about why they want to join the Society and their hopes for its future. Their numbers may be small, but they are free of nostalgic memories and pining for the Paradigm of the 50s. It's a tonic to speak with them. No doubt most of us find such conversations refreshing.
Here are two developments where I think we can find clues about the future of the SM in the United States: 1) Marianist lay communities in the US and 2) the commitment as lay Marianists made by a small group of students graduating from UD last April. The first development is a process that's been going on for the last 50 years; the second, for only a year or two.
During the years since World War II, there has been a steady growth in the number of lay communities of the Marianist Family in the United States. Gradually, adult sodalities or Marianist lay communities, as we now call them, have matured and are maturing. Local groups have taken root and are in the process of linking with one another in various networks and organizations. There is a partnership emerging between Marianist lay communities, the Society, and the Daughters of Mary in the United States. At the moment, there is still a lot of financial support that the lay Marianist communities get from the SM. Here and there, I hear reports of distress about this fact from some lay Marianists; but I think the day will come, after a few years, when lay Marianists will get the hang of fund raising and be financially independent of the SM. By then lay Marianists and religious Marianists in the country will be teaming up to tackle some of the great questions that need work in the Church and in the country—especially in works of social justice. Out of this will probably come some new large-scale ministry for the SM, one which will be as thrilling as running schools was in the Paradigm of the 50s.
Last April's commitment of 16 UD graduates as lay Marianists caught my attention. In a ceremony at the University chapel, each of these young people declared publicly his or her intention to be a Marianist as a lay person in today's Church and world. (See Family Online, May 9, 2006.) Any member of the SM reading through the texts of these declarations will find an expression of sentiments quite familiar and quite Marianist. The declarations frequently mention Mary and her spirit as a source of inspiration. They breathe a Marianist zeal, which will remind any member of the SM who reads them of how he felt at the time of his first vows. An intriguing aspect of this event is the fact that it was shepherded by Joan McGuinness Wagner. Joan is herself a lay Marianist. She belongs to a Marianist lay community in Dayton and has various Marianist-related jobs in and near the University. Of course, the young people who made their commitments in the April ceremony know various Marianist religious in the ambit of the University. But how did it come about that the person who guided this development to fruition is a lay Marianist who has somehow communicated her contagious love and dedication to the Marianist vision?
Both of my examples involve lay members of the Marianist Family. This fact underscores my intuition that partnership with lay Marianist will play a large role in the future of the SM in the United States. But this should not be so difficult for us to envision. After all, did not the SM arise out of Chaminade's activity with lay Marianists for some 20 years before 181
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Vows in Developed Society vs in Subsistence
Since the religious vows were first formulated in a subsistence society it seems that they should be reformulated in a developed society. What do you think?
FROM SUBSISTENCE TO DEVELOPMENT: Religious Life and the Vows
Father William Ferree, S.M., a provincial superior of the Society of Mary during the effervescence of the late 60's, used the progress of people from subsistence to development as a general organizing principle to explain all social phenomenon. For him, this movement explained from where we came and to where we are going as a people. It was the basis of his general theory of social justice: our social requirement to organize life for the good flourishing of all. He frequently referred to this progression from subsistence to development in teaching and writing. Since religious life and the vows were formulated in a time of subsistence, it might be appropriate to reflect on the meaning of the life in reference to new understanding that comes with development.
Subsistence is a cyclical way of life in which most are poor and live from hand to mouth. Everyone is poor with the exception of land owners, money changers and royalty. Scarcity characterizes everything. A few are rich and progress is not a common notion for people living a subsistence life. Development brings progress, education, an orientation to the future, and an abundance of everything. Wealth is fixed in subsistence, whereas in a development society wealth is created.
Frequently the word “economy”is used as object of the adjective "subsistence", and most often is the limit of the values with which subsistence is analyzed. Other disciplines and social, psychological and spiritual theories, however, can also be analyzed in reference to subsistence.
Although Ferree alludes to this movement from subsistence to development in his circular letter on the vows, #1 and #2, he does not elaborate in detail and leaves open conjecture about how the understanding of the vows might be different in the two eras.
Before referring directly to the three vows of religious life, it might be useful to further contrast subsistence and development by noting specific examples of characteristics which change in this progression since change in everything is the dynamic element in the movement from subsistence to development.
The most important dynamic might be between scarcity and abundance. In a subsistence society everything is scarce, not only material goods but information, relationships, and dreams. Under subsistence, life requires sharing, and hoarding is a common survival technique. While in a development mode abundance is the hallmark of everything from goods to technology. The common need is to solve the problem of distribution of goods. Knowledge is perhaps the best example of this dynamic of abundance since it can be distributed indefinitely.
In these two societies even virtue can be defined with different emphases on personal and societal needs. The best example of this might be the practice of social justice in reference to the distribution of an abundance of goods and opportunities versus a scarcity of these. In the development case, the virtue of social justice must be practiced in common rather than individually.
Perhaps the one area in which the contrast between the two modes of life is most striking is in the area of relationship to place. In subsistence societies, place is a very narrow concept. One seldom travels far away from home and life is generally spent close to one's family. Care of the earth is very important because the immediate neighborhood is the basis of livelihood and is all that is known. People are close to the earth and reverence it. As development takes place people become alienated form the earth and are more prone to exploit it. They travel further and develop relationships other than family. Diversity is a more common characteristic in a developed society.
Although community is held high in a subsistence society, it is limited to family and tribe, and the notion of globalization is unknown. Local self-sufficiency is a requirement for survival rather than reliance on the market. Money as a means of exchange is less common in subsistence. Common property under subsistence is replaced with private property under development. Community even looks different in the two societies if hospitality, ritual, and individual rights are considered.
Population control is unknown in a situation of subsistence. Families are large and provide additional workers and insurance for taking care of parents in their old age. Sex is for the sole purpose of procreation and marriage is arranged for the economic good of the family. With the ability to control births in developed societies, the purpose of sex takes on additional meaning and thus alters the purpose and time frame of marriage as well. In addition, length of life is longer in developed societies and the purpose of sex extends beyond the natural child-producing age.
Even religion is influenced by the movement from subsistence to development and our image of God undergoes profound changes. Scientific insights into the origins of the universe produce new cosmologies which replace long held stories to explain our origins. Genesis is replaced with the Big Bang. An understanding of new cosmology influences religious doctrine and new images of God are sought to reconcile with new knowledge. God the Provider is replaced with God the Originator. Dependence is placed on planning rather than on Providence. Original blessing replaces original sin, and heaven appears to be on earth. Even the Church acknowledges that happiness should be characteristic of this life as well as in the hereafter. The Kingdom of God is sought on this earth now.
The notion that personal or human rights acquire greater significance in a developed society influences all aspects of life and our sense of community profoundly. Coupled with a tendency toward secularism under development, one finds it hard to distinguish what is religious and what is secular.
Given the profound changes which have influenced human flourishing and life under development, it is worth speculating about how our understanding of religious vows, which were formulated at a time when subsistence was the common way of life, should be understood and practiced in an era influenced by and committed to the notion of development and all that comes with it. The developed world is what we have, we are committed to it, and there is no indication that the trend will be reversed. So, how should we formulate and practice the three vows in this developed world?
Ferree and others taught that the purpose of the vows was to be an eschatological witness, a sign, to the transitory nature of life on earth which when ended will be concerned about neither marriage nor possessions, nor with personal choice. Under an eschatological theory of the vows, those aspects of life are denied by the vows as a witness to the hereafter. Religious are supposed to be a sign that all in this life is to lead to a better life in heaven. Our purpose in life is to escape this world and the toil brought on by original sin.
So, we can ask: what should be the meaning and practice of the “vow of poverty” in a society that knows that the way to meet the growing human demand to feed the hungry and cloth the naked is to increase wealth? Or that the real human problem is not scarcity but the distribution of an abundance of goods and wealth?
What should be the meaning and practice of the “vow of chastity” in developed societies in which humans experience longer life, more complex relationships and in which the whole notion of sex and its purpose is redefined?
What should be the meaning of the “vow of obedience” in a developed world in which the level of education is very high, in which the notion of personal rights is high and in which the acceptance of the personal gift of each person is recognized as sacred and in which the value of collaboration is recognized to be the key to the solution to making progress.
In Poverty, Celibacy, and Obedience, Irish religious Diarmuid O'Murchu uses new wording to describe the nature of religious life and the formulation and practice of the three vows.
O'Murchu reflects on a religious life based on a philosophy of non-violence and suggests a new way of looking at the vows in which the objects of the vows are achieved in a non-violent context respecting persons, the earth and individual gifts. “If we are to adopt nonviolence as an under-girding value for vowed living, we cannot escape the painful truth that much of our living in the past—our attempts to keep the vows—was itself fundamentally violent”.
He writes: “A reformulation of the vows is long overdue, and it seems to me that we cannot develop a new theology or spirituality of the vowed life without a radical change in the language we use.”
Further he writes:'…how I live the vow of poverty in a wealthy Western European context requires a radically different response from that of being a slum dweller in Sao Paulo or Delhi. Context governs the criteria that make my liminal witness authentic or otherwise.”
O'Murchu writes about all three of the vows but here reflection will be made only on the vow of poverty as an example of the new language and understanding suggested by O'Murchu.
O'Murchu starts by suggesting that in the past the vow of poverty was concerned with stripping away all attachment to material goods to set free the soul for eternal life but was not concerned with care of the goods of God's creation. In addition, he says, the responsibility was on the individual person, and the collective wealth of the community was not subject to the same scrutiny. Of course, examples of excessive wealth of monasteries and religious communities are numerous in history.
For the vow for poverty, O'Murchu calls it the vow of mutual sustainability. “. . .in the old understanding of the vow of poverty ownership of goods belonged to the community rather than to the individual. This often led to widespread abuse and a great deal of irresponsible evasiveness. The notion of sustainability requires each and all of us to reclaim a real ownership of the goods entrusted to our care.”
In reference to all of the vows, O'Murchu uses the term “liminality” to describe the place and perspective from which religious should be living in this world. He is saying that we should be on the margins. “Liminal witness will strive to remain open to several interpretations for every aspect of reality. No question is ever closed, because such closure is an act of idolatry and often an act of blasphemy”.
If these perspectives anger you or thrill you, in either case, reading the entire text will make you think about the past and future of the vowed life. Perhaps you will be moved to write a comment to share your thoughts.
FROM SUBSISTENCE TO DEVELOPMENT: Religious Life and the Vows
Father William Ferree, S.M., a provincial superior of the Society of Mary during the effervescence of the late 60's, used the progress of people from subsistence to development as a general organizing principle to explain all social phenomenon. For him, this movement explained from where we came and to where we are going as a people. It was the basis of his general theory of social justice: our social requirement to organize life for the good flourishing of all. He frequently referred to this progression from subsistence to development in teaching and writing. Since religious life and the vows were formulated in a time of subsistence, it might be appropriate to reflect on the meaning of the life in reference to new understanding that comes with development.
Subsistence is a cyclical way of life in which most are poor and live from hand to mouth. Everyone is poor with the exception of land owners, money changers and royalty. Scarcity characterizes everything. A few are rich and progress is not a common notion for people living a subsistence life. Development brings progress, education, an orientation to the future, and an abundance of everything. Wealth is fixed in subsistence, whereas in a development society wealth is created.
Frequently the word “economy”is used as object of the adjective "subsistence", and most often is the limit of the values with which subsistence is analyzed. Other disciplines and social, psychological and spiritual theories, however, can also be analyzed in reference to subsistence.
Although Ferree alludes to this movement from subsistence to development in his circular letter on the vows, #1 and #2, he does not elaborate in detail and leaves open conjecture about how the understanding of the vows might be different in the two eras.
Before referring directly to the three vows of religious life, it might be useful to further contrast subsistence and development by noting specific examples of characteristics which change in this progression since change in everything is the dynamic element in the movement from subsistence to development.
The most important dynamic might be between scarcity and abundance. In a subsistence society everything is scarce, not only material goods but information, relationships, and dreams. Under subsistence, life requires sharing, and hoarding is a common survival technique. While in a development mode abundance is the hallmark of everything from goods to technology. The common need is to solve the problem of distribution of goods. Knowledge is perhaps the best example of this dynamic of abundance since it can be distributed indefinitely.
In these two societies even virtue can be defined with different emphases on personal and societal needs. The best example of this might be the practice of social justice in reference to the distribution of an abundance of goods and opportunities versus a scarcity of these. In the development case, the virtue of social justice must be practiced in common rather than individually.
Perhaps the one area in which the contrast between the two modes of life is most striking is in the area of relationship to place. In subsistence societies, place is a very narrow concept. One seldom travels far away from home and life is generally spent close to one's family. Care of the earth is very important because the immediate neighborhood is the basis of livelihood and is all that is known. People are close to the earth and reverence it. As development takes place people become alienated form the earth and are more prone to exploit it. They travel further and develop relationships other than family. Diversity is a more common characteristic in a developed society.
Although community is held high in a subsistence society, it is limited to family and tribe, and the notion of globalization is unknown. Local self-sufficiency is a requirement for survival rather than reliance on the market. Money as a means of exchange is less common in subsistence. Common property under subsistence is replaced with private property under development. Community even looks different in the two societies if hospitality, ritual, and individual rights are considered.
Population control is unknown in a situation of subsistence. Families are large and provide additional workers and insurance for taking care of parents in their old age. Sex is for the sole purpose of procreation and marriage is arranged for the economic good of the family. With the ability to control births in developed societies, the purpose of sex takes on additional meaning and thus alters the purpose and time frame of marriage as well. In addition, length of life is longer in developed societies and the purpose of sex extends beyond the natural child-producing age.
Even religion is influenced by the movement from subsistence to development and our image of God undergoes profound changes. Scientific insights into the origins of the universe produce new cosmologies which replace long held stories to explain our origins. Genesis is replaced with the Big Bang. An understanding of new cosmology influences religious doctrine and new images of God are sought to reconcile with new knowledge. God the Provider is replaced with God the Originator. Dependence is placed on planning rather than on Providence. Original blessing replaces original sin, and heaven appears to be on earth. Even the Church acknowledges that happiness should be characteristic of this life as well as in the hereafter. The Kingdom of God is sought on this earth now.
The notion that personal or human rights acquire greater significance in a developed society influences all aspects of life and our sense of community profoundly. Coupled with a tendency toward secularism under development, one finds it hard to distinguish what is religious and what is secular.
Given the profound changes which have influenced human flourishing and life under development, it is worth speculating about how our understanding of religious vows, which were formulated at a time when subsistence was the common way of life, should be understood and practiced in an era influenced by and committed to the notion of development and all that comes with it. The developed world is what we have, we are committed to it, and there is no indication that the trend will be reversed. So, how should we formulate and practice the three vows in this developed world?
Ferree and others taught that the purpose of the vows was to be an eschatological witness, a sign, to the transitory nature of life on earth which when ended will be concerned about neither marriage nor possessions, nor with personal choice. Under an eschatological theory of the vows, those aspects of life are denied by the vows as a witness to the hereafter. Religious are supposed to be a sign that all in this life is to lead to a better life in heaven. Our purpose in life is to escape this world and the toil brought on by original sin.
So, we can ask: what should be the meaning and practice of the “vow of poverty” in a society that knows that the way to meet the growing human demand to feed the hungry and cloth the naked is to increase wealth? Or that the real human problem is not scarcity but the distribution of an abundance of goods and wealth?
What should be the meaning and practice of the “vow of chastity” in developed societies in which humans experience longer life, more complex relationships and in which the whole notion of sex and its purpose is redefined?
What should be the meaning of the “vow of obedience” in a developed world in which the level of education is very high, in which the notion of personal rights is high and in which the acceptance of the personal gift of each person is recognized as sacred and in which the value of collaboration is recognized to be the key to the solution to making progress.
In Poverty, Celibacy, and Obedience, Irish religious Diarmuid O'Murchu uses new wording to describe the nature of religious life and the formulation and practice of the three vows.
O'Murchu reflects on a religious life based on a philosophy of non-violence and suggests a new way of looking at the vows in which the objects of the vows are achieved in a non-violent context respecting persons, the earth and individual gifts. “If we are to adopt nonviolence as an under-girding value for vowed living, we cannot escape the painful truth that much of our living in the past—our attempts to keep the vows—was itself fundamentally violent”.
He writes: “A reformulation of the vows is long overdue, and it seems to me that we cannot develop a new theology or spirituality of the vowed life without a radical change in the language we use.”
Further he writes:'…how I live the vow of poverty in a wealthy Western European context requires a radically different response from that of being a slum dweller in Sao Paulo or Delhi. Context governs the criteria that make my liminal witness authentic or otherwise.”
O'Murchu writes about all three of the vows but here reflection will be made only on the vow of poverty as an example of the new language and understanding suggested by O'Murchu.
O'Murchu starts by suggesting that in the past the vow of poverty was concerned with stripping away all attachment to material goods to set free the soul for eternal life but was not concerned with care of the goods of God's creation. In addition, he says, the responsibility was on the individual person, and the collective wealth of the community was not subject to the same scrutiny. Of course, examples of excessive wealth of monasteries and religious communities are numerous in history.
For the vow for poverty, O'Murchu calls it the vow of mutual sustainability. “. . .in the old understanding of the vow of poverty ownership of goods belonged to the community rather than to the individual. This often led to widespread abuse and a great deal of irresponsible evasiveness. The notion of sustainability requires each and all of us to reclaim a real ownership of the goods entrusted to our care.”
In reference to all of the vows, O'Murchu uses the term “liminality” to describe the place and perspective from which religious should be living in this world. He is saying that we should be on the margins. “Liminal witness will strive to remain open to several interpretations for every aspect of reality. No question is ever closed, because such closure is an act of idolatry and often an act of blasphemy”.
If these perspectives anger you or thrill you, in either case, reading the entire text will make you think about the past and future of the vowed life. Perhaps you will be moved to write a comment to share your thoughts.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Individuation And Liberation In Religious Life by Phil Aaron
After living fifty seven years as a vowed religious, I am haunted by the fact that we religious are a dying breed especially in developed countries, unable to recruit new members even to replacement levels let alone able to recruit for growth. While at the same time no organized, grassroots and fundamental critique and analysis of the phenomenon of religious life is taking place.
For over forty years we have been in a process of renewal which has been concerned with externals such as dress, daily schedule, living situations and so forth without making a critical analysis of the religious life itself using new theories of human behavior which were unknown to all of us during the hundreds of years of development, growth and living of vowed religious life, personal growth theories which today are accepted as essential to living a fully human life. We have renewed but not revolutionized religious life.
What appealed and made sense for good people hundreds of years ago no longer attracts nor makes sense for good people in the postmodern world. Now men and women in the developed world have education and a new sense of themselves and their relationship to the world. Educated people no longer flee from the world nor look for life beyond this world. They rather embrace the world as good and use its good to develop the reign of God in this world. In order to survive, religious communities must address issues related to a need for a new understanding of the notion of the self while being vowed religious in this world.
If a much traveled bridge suddenly collapsed, engineers would immediately organize to find the fatal flaw in the design that caused the rapid destruction of something that they had designed with the best knowledge and planning available to them at the time, something they expected to last longer than it did. What is the fatal flaw in the design of religious life as we knew it?
The classic story of the widget business which faced extinction when widgets were no longer needed should be a learning model for religious orders. Some businesses have had to make radical and revolutionary changes in their identity to survive. This is no less true for individual religious and for religious orders. Changes made thus far have not been sufficiently radical to lead from death to resurrection. Why is there this resistance to radical change even in the face of organizational death? Is there something about the relationship between self identity and the nature of religious life that we need to address to survive?
Some make the survival of religious orders a divine issue related to God's call to vocation but, - call me a heretic - I believe vocation is a human call from the community, the culture and the church and that religious orders are human organizations subject to the same forces and dynamics as any organized group.
There are human issues involved in the demise of religious life which have to do with our self identity as religious and our lack of freedom to change fundamental aspects of our life, aspects which appear to be inherent in the very understanding of religious life but which may not be, and which are threatened when renewal is attempted, especially with reference to the notion of obedience and the responsibility to take charge of our own lives.
I wonder how we have let ourselves get to this situation in which we are spiraling down to extinction and unable to reverse the trend. Has personal identification with the norms of religious life (for example, obedience, humility, abnegation, uniformity, silence…) served to produce individual members who have no interest or ability, nor power to critique the culture of the religious community within which they live? None of this is said as an indictment or criticism of any individuals or leaders of religious communities. Individual religious and leadership have for decades been working hard at renewal. What seems to have been lacking is a loving critique of some fundamental values related to the system of consecrated life. This present critique faults no individual religious or superior nor does it assign blame to anyone. It is meant as an objective analysis of the notion of what we call vowed religious life in the Catholic Church.
To analyze the notion of religious life, I look to two theorists: a psychologist, Carl Jung, and a philosopher, Paulo Freire. Jung was concerned with the notion of individualtion, the process whereby a person develops a sense of self in relation to the other, to the world. Freire was concerned with the notion of freedom especially among oppressed peoples.
Individuation
Jung's idea of individuation is discussed by psychotherapist, Mary Watkins:
Jung focused on the emergence of individuality out of collectivity. For him, individuation “is the process by which individual beings are formed and differentiated; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from the general, collective psychology:”. (Jung, 1871 p757). I read “collective' here as the culture(s) one is residing in psychologically. Jung understood the power of a culture's dominant ideas over the individual and saw that simple identification with these norms provided no critique of them, no interest or power in resisting them, no moral center apart from them. (Watkins p 207)
In his 1957 work, The Undiscovered Self, Carl Jung writes about the loss of self identity under communist governments and the subsequent loss of moral responsibility. He contends that the fatal flaw of communism is that this political system suppressed the individual. To what extend can the following quote from The Undiscovered Self be applied to the notion of religious life as we know it?
"The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the State (raison d'etat). Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in the individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed and educated as a social unit, accommodated in the appropriate housing unit, and amused in accordance with the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses. The rulers, in their turn, are just as much social units as the ruled and are distinguished only by the fact that they are specialized mouthpieces of the State doctrine." (p22)
Have we religious “given ourselves” so much to the notion of religious community that at this moment we do not have a strong enough sense of self to sufficiently critique the system which formed us and which does not seem to make sense to modern thinkers and those good persons who might think about joining us in our life?
Jungian analysts Howard W. Tyas, Jr. and Karen O. Hodges in one of their lectures describe the importance of individuation: “Jung understood individuation to be something that began in the second half of life, when individuals reach the zenith of their lives and suddenly find themselves facing an unknown vista or some unforeseen upheaval. Sometimes this turning point takes the form of a crisis: such as . . . a health problem, a broken relationship, or a change of residence or profession - something which upsets the status quo. Sometimes this experience assumes the form of a profound self-doubt, a loss of meaning or religious conviction, a questioning of everything previously held so dear. Sometimes it presents itself as a deep yearning or a call to change direction. And many times, it can manifest itself in powerful dreams and fantasies”.
As our median age continues to increase, it seems we need to analyze and critique the same list: self doubt, loss of meaning, and a questioning of everything in order to see a new future for religious orders.
Bert Chapman, former religious, has recently published A Monk's Tale, his recollection of his religious formation days and the characters and situations involved. Having lived these early days with him, I can appreciate his reflection on how his formation relates to the notion of individuation: Reflecting on the influence of his spiritual director he writes:
"Reflecting on his influence on me at this time (1997), I can feel the sadness experienced throughout my entire religious life as a Marianist. It's a sadness developed and, might I say, cultivated to neurotic perfection within religious orders prior to Vatican II. Religious superiors, as they themselves taught and trained, assumed life for candidates began the day they entered the monastery, that their lives before were to be forgotten, renounced, denied, and expunged. References to one's former life were frowned upon and any sharing of former experiences were considered possible temptations to return to that life, thus renouncing the call made by God to a new life as Brothers of Mary. As a result of losing our histories, all of us--postulants, novices, Scholastics, temporary professed Brothers, and those with perpetual vows--would deny to others something very precious, something revealing their identities, something to reveal for lasting friendships. Religious superiors preferred a house of strangers. They never would understand friendship as something to ground the natural grace of charity. Intimacy in all its senses was unknown."
"The denial of a person's history was a denial the person ever existed, he once moved in time and space, he loved and was loved, he was somebody in another city and hour who meant something precious to others and who possessed value and received unconditional love because he simply was who he was."
"Religious communities were convinced such histories had to be expunged in order to make religious life work efficiently and safely for the common good. Identities were an obstacle to the common life. (I saw a movie's depiction of battle-scarred soldiers in Vietnam not bothering to learn the names of new recruits they statistically thought would not survive long enough to merit their remembrance. To me it was an analogue to the real aloofness and abstract context of human relationships in religious life.) We danced as skeletons a danse macabre because flesh and blood -- these essentials to human beings--we denied having in order to imitate the angels and, along the way, in order to abuse and mangle Christ's meaning to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."
I bought into the system. I swallowed, in the beginning, all the premises of religious life. I kept the Rule and, I truly believed, the Rule would keep me. It became evident in college and especially "out in community" in Trinity (January, '53, Brooklyn) and Cathedral Latin (school year '54-'55, Cleveland) that the Rule and I were at odds in profound ways and "keeping one another" meant two different things."
Some will argue that the ideas about which Chapman writes have been addressed, reform has taken place, and that we are beyond the issues he mentions. The few new members joining religious orders are frequently quoted saying that the conditions which he writes about are no longer in vogue and religious orders are beyond and past those ways of acting and the values implied. My contention is that the issues he addresses are still within us, rooted deep within the notion of religious life and myth, and that failure to adapt some basic values related to the self and modern life does not make us attractive to a large segment of potential recruits. Valuing the self identity and individual difference of present members is the place to begin. A majority of members present in religious orders today were formed under the values expressed above by Chapman and these still operate in their lives.
Liberation
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire was concerned with the process of liberation in a communitarian context. He developed educational methods to raise the consciousness of oppressed groups by leading them from a position of being an object to that of being a subject.
Freire's theory is concerned with the process of liberation where by an individual, lives and takes action as a subject and names the world rather than to be an object, something which is acted on. Freire is concerned with the masses of people in Latin America who suffer oppression, have no voice and participate in a “culture of silence.” He taught that humans, in order to be fully human, must liberate themselves from oppression in whatever form it is experienced.
Friere defined oppression in this way: “Any situation in which “A” objectively exploits “B” or hinders his pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person is one of oppression. Such a situation in itself constitutes violence, even when sweetened by false generosity, because it interferes with man's ontological and historical vocation to be more fully human. With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun.” (p40)
Many accept Freire's theory when applied to economically oppressed masses in Latin America but fail to apply it in situations where oppression is less recognized and acknowledged.
A culture of silence is characterized by lack of horizontal communication in a situation in which individuals feel something is not right but do not openly express their concern because of fear that by speaking out their situation will become worse and that others know best. They are made to feel that the situation is due to fate or that, in the case of the poor, their reward will be received in heaven. In a culture of silence, the voice of the silent is not sought by those in charge.
My thesis is that religious orders and their members participate in a situation of oppression and live in a culture of silence, a situation experienced by all people in general no matter what their state of life. Our task as persons is to continually identify situations of oppression in order to achieve human freedom. This is no less true for members of religious orders than it is for persons living in oppressive marriages.
At this time, members of religious orders live in a culture (the religious order) which could be analyzed for its negative influence on the development of the self of individual religious. I think that good, educated individuals today understand intuitively that religious communities are not a good environment for the development of self, and for this reason are not motivated to become vowed members. They may be interested in being lay associates but they find no motivation, no attraction to live as vowed religious.
Within religious orders the self is submerged to the point where good religious do not criticize their life sufficiently to change it. As a result, very old myths and perspectives on the world, love and the self prevent the adoption of new practices and new identities which will be attractive to new recruits.
That religious live in a state of oppression and in a culture of silence may be examined by taking a critical look at the myths, rituals, language and practices that have shaped religious life from the beginning. In so many cases religious life and virtue is described in terms of submission, abnegation, obedience, rule and authority in language frequently related to practices of childhood. This notion of childhood influences many practices associated with the traditional three vows and this does not allow the energy inherent in a strong self to critique the practices of the order.
How to reconcile humility, detachment, and responsibility with a spirituality of the development of self is the key to the resurrection of religious life. Others have written extensively about how to rename and refocus the three vows so that the self and the energy inherent in a strong self may influence our practice. That the self has to be submerged in order to practice virtue and to do good is a myth that has to be challenged through dialogue.
Dialogue among oppressed people is the key to overcoming oppression. Dialogue about the development of new myths about the self and its place in community and the practice of virtue is the process which must be encouraged
to put a new and more attractive face on the vowed life.
For over forty years we have been in a process of renewal which has been concerned with externals such as dress, daily schedule, living situations and so forth without making a critical analysis of the religious life itself using new theories of human behavior which were unknown to all of us during the hundreds of years of development, growth and living of vowed religious life, personal growth theories which today are accepted as essential to living a fully human life. We have renewed but not revolutionized religious life.
What appealed and made sense for good people hundreds of years ago no longer attracts nor makes sense for good people in the postmodern world. Now men and women in the developed world have education and a new sense of themselves and their relationship to the world. Educated people no longer flee from the world nor look for life beyond this world. They rather embrace the world as good and use its good to develop the reign of God in this world. In order to survive, religious communities must address issues related to a need for a new understanding of the notion of the self while being vowed religious in this world.
If a much traveled bridge suddenly collapsed, engineers would immediately organize to find the fatal flaw in the design that caused the rapid destruction of something that they had designed with the best knowledge and planning available to them at the time, something they expected to last longer than it did. What is the fatal flaw in the design of religious life as we knew it?
The classic story of the widget business which faced extinction when widgets were no longer needed should be a learning model for religious orders. Some businesses have had to make radical and revolutionary changes in their identity to survive. This is no less true for individual religious and for religious orders. Changes made thus far have not been sufficiently radical to lead from death to resurrection. Why is there this resistance to radical change even in the face of organizational death? Is there something about the relationship between self identity and the nature of religious life that we need to address to survive?
Some make the survival of religious orders a divine issue related to God's call to vocation but, - call me a heretic - I believe vocation is a human call from the community, the culture and the church and that religious orders are human organizations subject to the same forces and dynamics as any organized group.
There are human issues involved in the demise of religious life which have to do with our self identity as religious and our lack of freedom to change fundamental aspects of our life, aspects which appear to be inherent in the very understanding of religious life but which may not be, and which are threatened when renewal is attempted, especially with reference to the notion of obedience and the responsibility to take charge of our own lives.
I wonder how we have let ourselves get to this situation in which we are spiraling down to extinction and unable to reverse the trend. Has personal identification with the norms of religious life (for example, obedience, humility, abnegation, uniformity, silence…) served to produce individual members who have no interest or ability, nor power to critique the culture of the religious community within which they live? None of this is said as an indictment or criticism of any individuals or leaders of religious communities. Individual religious and leadership have for decades been working hard at renewal. What seems to have been lacking is a loving critique of some fundamental values related to the system of consecrated life. This present critique faults no individual religious or superior nor does it assign blame to anyone. It is meant as an objective analysis of the notion of what we call vowed religious life in the Catholic Church.
To analyze the notion of religious life, I look to two theorists: a psychologist, Carl Jung, and a philosopher, Paulo Freire. Jung was concerned with the notion of individualtion, the process whereby a person develops a sense of self in relation to the other, to the world. Freire was concerned with the notion of freedom especially among oppressed peoples.
Individuation
Jung's idea of individuation is discussed by psychotherapist, Mary Watkins:
Jung focused on the emergence of individuality out of collectivity. For him, individuation “is the process by which individual beings are formed and differentiated; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from the general, collective psychology:”. (Jung, 1871 p757). I read “collective' here as the culture(s) one is residing in psychologically. Jung understood the power of a culture's dominant ideas over the individual and saw that simple identification with these norms provided no critique of them, no interest or power in resisting them, no moral center apart from them. (Watkins p 207)
In his 1957 work, The Undiscovered Self, Carl Jung writes about the loss of self identity under communist governments and the subsequent loss of moral responsibility. He contends that the fatal flaw of communism is that this political system suppressed the individual. To what extend can the following quote from The Undiscovered Self be applied to the notion of religious life as we know it?
"The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the State (raison d'etat). Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in the individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed and educated as a social unit, accommodated in the appropriate housing unit, and amused in accordance with the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses. The rulers, in their turn, are just as much social units as the ruled and are distinguished only by the fact that they are specialized mouthpieces of the State doctrine." (p22)
Have we religious “given ourselves” so much to the notion of religious community that at this moment we do not have a strong enough sense of self to sufficiently critique the system which formed us and which does not seem to make sense to modern thinkers and those good persons who might think about joining us in our life?
Jungian analysts Howard W. Tyas, Jr. and Karen O. Hodges in one of their lectures describe the importance of individuation: “Jung understood individuation to be something that began in the second half of life, when individuals reach the zenith of their lives and suddenly find themselves facing an unknown vista or some unforeseen upheaval. Sometimes this turning point takes the form of a crisis: such as . . . a health problem, a broken relationship, or a change of residence or profession - something which upsets the status quo. Sometimes this experience assumes the form of a profound self-doubt, a loss of meaning or religious conviction, a questioning of everything previously held so dear. Sometimes it presents itself as a deep yearning or a call to change direction. And many times, it can manifest itself in powerful dreams and fantasies”.
As our median age continues to increase, it seems we need to analyze and critique the same list: self doubt, loss of meaning, and a questioning of everything in order to see a new future for religious orders.
Bert Chapman, former religious, has recently published A Monk's Tale, his recollection of his religious formation days and the characters and situations involved. Having lived these early days with him, I can appreciate his reflection on how his formation relates to the notion of individuation: Reflecting on the influence of his spiritual director he writes:
"Reflecting on his influence on me at this time (1997), I can feel the sadness experienced throughout my entire religious life as a Marianist. It's a sadness developed and, might I say, cultivated to neurotic perfection within religious orders prior to Vatican II. Religious superiors, as they themselves taught and trained, assumed life for candidates began the day they entered the monastery, that their lives before were to be forgotten, renounced, denied, and expunged. References to one's former life were frowned upon and any sharing of former experiences were considered possible temptations to return to that life, thus renouncing the call made by God to a new life as Brothers of Mary. As a result of losing our histories, all of us--postulants, novices, Scholastics, temporary professed Brothers, and those with perpetual vows--would deny to others something very precious, something revealing their identities, something to reveal for lasting friendships. Religious superiors preferred a house of strangers. They never would understand friendship as something to ground the natural grace of charity. Intimacy in all its senses was unknown."
"The denial of a person's history was a denial the person ever existed, he once moved in time and space, he loved and was loved, he was somebody in another city and hour who meant something precious to others and who possessed value and received unconditional love because he simply was who he was."
"Religious communities were convinced such histories had to be expunged in order to make religious life work efficiently and safely for the common good. Identities were an obstacle to the common life. (I saw a movie's depiction of battle-scarred soldiers in Vietnam not bothering to learn the names of new recruits they statistically thought would not survive long enough to merit their remembrance. To me it was an analogue to the real aloofness and abstract context of human relationships in religious life.) We danced as skeletons a danse macabre because flesh and blood -- these essentials to human beings--we denied having in order to imitate the angels and, along the way, in order to abuse and mangle Christ's meaning to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."
I bought into the system. I swallowed, in the beginning, all the premises of religious life. I kept the Rule and, I truly believed, the Rule would keep me. It became evident in college and especially "out in community" in Trinity (January, '53, Brooklyn) and Cathedral Latin (school year '54-'55, Cleveland) that the Rule and I were at odds in profound ways and "keeping one another" meant two different things."
Some will argue that the ideas about which Chapman writes have been addressed, reform has taken place, and that we are beyond the issues he mentions. The few new members joining religious orders are frequently quoted saying that the conditions which he writes about are no longer in vogue and religious orders are beyond and past those ways of acting and the values implied. My contention is that the issues he addresses are still within us, rooted deep within the notion of religious life and myth, and that failure to adapt some basic values related to the self and modern life does not make us attractive to a large segment of potential recruits. Valuing the self identity and individual difference of present members is the place to begin. A majority of members present in religious orders today were formed under the values expressed above by Chapman and these still operate in their lives.
Liberation
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire was concerned with the process of liberation in a communitarian context. He developed educational methods to raise the consciousness of oppressed groups by leading them from a position of being an object to that of being a subject.
Freire's theory is concerned with the process of liberation where by an individual, lives and takes action as a subject and names the world rather than to be an object, something which is acted on. Freire is concerned with the masses of people in Latin America who suffer oppression, have no voice and participate in a “culture of silence.” He taught that humans, in order to be fully human, must liberate themselves from oppression in whatever form it is experienced.
Friere defined oppression in this way: “Any situation in which “A” objectively exploits “B” or hinders his pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person is one of oppression. Such a situation in itself constitutes violence, even when sweetened by false generosity, because it interferes with man's ontological and historical vocation to be more fully human. With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun.” (p40)
Many accept Freire's theory when applied to economically oppressed masses in Latin America but fail to apply it in situations where oppression is less recognized and acknowledged.
A culture of silence is characterized by lack of horizontal communication in a situation in which individuals feel something is not right but do not openly express their concern because of fear that by speaking out their situation will become worse and that others know best. They are made to feel that the situation is due to fate or that, in the case of the poor, their reward will be received in heaven. In a culture of silence, the voice of the silent is not sought by those in charge.
My thesis is that religious orders and their members participate in a situation of oppression and live in a culture of silence, a situation experienced by all people in general no matter what their state of life. Our task as persons is to continually identify situations of oppression in order to achieve human freedom. This is no less true for members of religious orders than it is for persons living in oppressive marriages.
At this time, members of religious orders live in a culture (the religious order) which could be analyzed for its negative influence on the development of the self of individual religious. I think that good, educated individuals today understand intuitively that religious communities are not a good environment for the development of self, and for this reason are not motivated to become vowed members. They may be interested in being lay associates but they find no motivation, no attraction to live as vowed religious.
Within religious orders the self is submerged to the point where good religious do not criticize their life sufficiently to change it. As a result, very old myths and perspectives on the world, love and the self prevent the adoption of new practices and new identities which will be attractive to new recruits.
That religious live in a state of oppression and in a culture of silence may be examined by taking a critical look at the myths, rituals, language and practices that have shaped religious life from the beginning. In so many cases religious life and virtue is described in terms of submission, abnegation, obedience, rule and authority in language frequently related to practices of childhood. This notion of childhood influences many practices associated with the traditional three vows and this does not allow the energy inherent in a strong self to critique the practices of the order.
How to reconcile humility, detachment, and responsibility with a spirituality of the development of self is the key to the resurrection of religious life. Others have written extensively about how to rename and refocus the three vows so that the self and the energy inherent in a strong self may influence our practice. That the self has to be submerged in order to practice virtue and to do good is a myth that has to be challenged through dialogue.
Dialogue among oppressed people is the key to overcoming oppression. Dialogue about the development of new myths about the self and its place in community and the practice of virtue is the process which must be encouraged
to put a new and more attractive face on the vowed life.
VitalQuestions
This blog is meant to be a dialogue and not a one way blog. So, you can click "comment" and answer any of the questions which are vital to you.
1. How can religious life be prophetic today?
2. What do we need to do to adapt to modern times?
3. How can the French School of spirituality be adapted to be more relevant to our times?
4. What will attract and guarantee new membership among affluent societies?
5. In what new ways can the vows be stated and lived in modern life?
6. How can we live religious life in a postmodern, post-Christian era.
7. How can religious life be adapted to new movements in eco—spirituality and concern for the earth?
8. How can the notion of social justice be integrated into all of religious life?
9. How can the founding principles be related to today's world?
10. What are the issues which have prevented us from adapting sufficiently and why are we in crisis?
11. What should we have done in the past forty years which we did not do?
12. How do our governance structures contribute to our inability to change?
13. How is the notion of community to be expanded to include more than concern for how and where members live daily life?
14. Was the high recruitment of the past fifty years a one-time phenomenon, an aberration not something essential to the continuation of our form of religious life?
1. How can religious life be prophetic today?
2. What do we need to do to adapt to modern times?
3. How can the French School of spirituality be adapted to be more relevant to our times?
4. What will attract and guarantee new membership among affluent societies?
5. In what new ways can the vows be stated and lived in modern life?
6. How can we live religious life in a postmodern, post-Christian era.
7. How can religious life be adapted to new movements in eco—spirituality and concern for the earth?
8. How can the notion of social justice be integrated into all of religious life?
9. How can the founding principles be related to today's world?
10. What are the issues which have prevented us from adapting sufficiently and why are we in crisis?
11. What should we have done in the past forty years which we did not do?
12. How do our governance structures contribute to our inability to change?
13. How is the notion of community to be expanded to include more than concern for how and where members live daily life?
14. Was the high recruitment of the past fifty years a one-time phenomenon, an aberration not something essential to the continuation of our form of religious life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
