Reflections on the 2009 Common Bond meeting
Several hundred former members of the Society of Mary met at the University of Dayton recently for a weekend of remembrance, reflection and ritual. All seemed to agree that it was a great success and there was general concurrence that Common Bonders and members of the Society of Mary have much in common.
What can religious life learn from the fact that hundreds of highly trained, talented and gifted individuals started on the path to perpetual membership and, having determined that it was not the right path for them, were separated from the Great Project, the Society of Mary?
A good education has allowed these men to make outstanding contributions to church and society not only through their own efforts but also through the outstanding families they have produced.
Many members of Common Bond indicate that their initial formation in the postulate, novitiate and as vowed members has had a profound influence on their lives. They consider those years as a strong foundation for what they have been able to achieve in life. Many still pursue our common mission.
Unfortunately the Society of Mary has moved on without their participation even though it invested significant resources in their formation. How can this not be considered a great loss for the mission of the Society? In the past we had sufficient numbers joining which did not require us to reflect on the consequence of the great loss we had experienced.
Speculation about what could have been accomplished had these men continued membership or at least had continued an official relationship may not be a fruitful exercise, but speculation about what could be with a new and creative relationship between the Society and Common Bond members may be appropriate as we continue to strategize how we can continue our mission with ever decreasing numbers of perpetually professed.
The future of religious life, and in particular the Society of Mary in its present form, is in jeopardy. A continuing future may be related to the need to change the idea that making perpetual vows is the basic requirement for membership.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The future is in the past
Marianists living in ohio have a unique opportunity to view a new exhibit at the Cincinnati Museum: Women and Spirit, the history of women religious in the United states.; this professionally made, multimedia display relates the inspiring story of pioneer women who came to the USA during the 1800's and established health care systems, educational systems and social service systems where none had existed before. In deed, they read the signs of the times.
At a time when the future of religious life looks bleak, this exhibit may inspire some to imitate the way in which these early religious women faced challenges almost unimaginable to us. It details the story of how these women ventured where no women had traveled before. To say they were liminal is to state the obivous: starting hospital and schools with little money, taking on administrative roles not open to women and living a life of poverty that was real.
The exhibit is at the Cincinnati Museum until August 30 when it starts on a national tour.
For a peek at the exhibit check out
http://www.womenandspirit.org/
At a time when the future of religious life looks bleak, this exhibit may inspire some to imitate the way in which these early religious women faced challenges almost unimaginable to us. It details the story of how these women ventured where no women had traveled before. To say they were liminal is to state the obivous: starting hospital and schools with little money, taking on administrative roles not open to women and living a life of poverty that was real.
The exhibit is at the Cincinnati Museum until August 30 when it starts on a national tour.
For a peek at the exhibit check out
http://www.womenandspirit.org/
Sunday, May 31, 2009
What color is the future of religious life?
The future of religious life is GREEN according to Harvard scholar Sarah McFarland Taylor in her new book Green Sisters: A Spiritual Ecology (Harvard Press, 2007). Taylor spent a number of years visiting many of the ecology and spirituality centers sponsored by women’s religious orders in North America and declares the future is Green. As a scholar and not a Catholic, Taylor takes a balanced look at the scope and influence of new ministries which frequently base their vision and mission on the writings of Thomas Berry.
Taylor used on-line interviews, personal visits and individual surveys to determine the scope and impact of more than fifty ecology, spirituality and farming centers sponsored by women religious. She concludes that “the success or failure…to attract new vocations into the movement will be a harbinger of how this movement will affect the revitalization and reinvention of Catholic religious life in the Twenty-first century.
In her analysis Taylor uses the notion of “reinhabiting” both the earth and religious communities. Reinhabiting is a term used with another ecological term “bioregionalism” to describe how to live in place, how to live in a certain “home” as a measure of sustainability. The author suggests that the Green sisters are re-visioning both their relationship with the earth and the founding values of their religious communities. A prime example of this notion of reinhabiting is the way in which many of the participating religious orders are re-inventing the purpose and mission of motherhouse properties owned by the religious orders by turning them into earth conscious spirituality centers.
Taylor does a good job of placing the green sisters movement in the historical context of the activities of women religious in North America beginning with the very difficult pioneering efforts of founders arriving from Europe in the 1800’s through the civil rights movement, the sanctuary movement and ongoing social justice activities throughout their history. The development of the Grail movement is cited as one example of the early involvement of women in combining concern for the earth with the liturgical movement and ritual.
The development of Green Mountains monastery in Vermont in the last ten years is given a lot of attention by Taylor. Some who have made an environmental retreat directed by the co-founders of this new monastery, Gail Worcelo and Bernadette Bostwick may be familiar with this initiative. Green Mountain Monastery is an example of a new religious order based completely on the ecological values espoused by Thomas Berry including new definitions of the traditional three vows.
Many of the examples of earth related spirituality centers cited by Taylor drew inspiration from Genesis Farm, one of the early efforts of a women’s religious order to use farm land as a place to combine cosmology, sustainable farming practice and spirituality. One chapter is devoted to the efforts of a Canadian religious order to organize the preservation of heirloom seeds as a counter balance to the large scale industrialization of farming through the use of genetically modified seeds which contain terminator genes which prevent planting again after the first crop.
Generally, Taylor shows how “it ain’t easy being green” by noting the resistance from both church and culture which is directed toward some of the efforts of women religious pioneering in alternative perspectives on both religion and ecology. It is not as if this is anything new since historically women religious have always been fighting for voice in a male dominated church.
Read Green Sisters to be inspired by strong efforts to give meaning to the three vows at a time when doubt seems to hinder new growth and new vision among male religious.
Taylor used on-line interviews, personal visits and individual surveys to determine the scope and impact of more than fifty ecology, spirituality and farming centers sponsored by women religious. She concludes that “the success or failure…to attract new vocations into the movement will be a harbinger of how this movement will affect the revitalization and reinvention of Catholic religious life in the Twenty-first century.
In her analysis Taylor uses the notion of “reinhabiting” both the earth and religious communities. Reinhabiting is a term used with another ecological term “bioregionalism” to describe how to live in place, how to live in a certain “home” as a measure of sustainability. The author suggests that the Green sisters are re-visioning both their relationship with the earth and the founding values of their religious communities. A prime example of this notion of reinhabiting is the way in which many of the participating religious orders are re-inventing the purpose and mission of motherhouse properties owned by the religious orders by turning them into earth conscious spirituality centers.
Taylor does a good job of placing the green sisters movement in the historical context of the activities of women religious in North America beginning with the very difficult pioneering efforts of founders arriving from Europe in the 1800’s through the civil rights movement, the sanctuary movement and ongoing social justice activities throughout their history. The development of the Grail movement is cited as one example of the early involvement of women in combining concern for the earth with the liturgical movement and ritual.
The development of Green Mountains monastery in Vermont in the last ten years is given a lot of attention by Taylor. Some who have made an environmental retreat directed by the co-founders of this new monastery, Gail Worcelo and Bernadette Bostwick may be familiar with this initiative. Green Mountain Monastery is an example of a new religious order based completely on the ecological values espoused by Thomas Berry including new definitions of the traditional three vows.
Many of the examples of earth related spirituality centers cited by Taylor drew inspiration from Genesis Farm, one of the early efforts of a women’s religious order to use farm land as a place to combine cosmology, sustainable farming practice and spirituality. One chapter is devoted to the efforts of a Canadian religious order to organize the preservation of heirloom seeds as a counter balance to the large scale industrialization of farming through the use of genetically modified seeds which contain terminator genes which prevent planting again after the first crop.
Generally, Taylor shows how “it ain’t easy being green” by noting the resistance from both church and culture which is directed toward some of the efforts of women religious pioneering in alternative perspectives on both religion and ecology. It is not as if this is anything new since historically women religious have always been fighting for voice in a male dominated church.
Read Green Sisters to be inspired by strong efforts to give meaning to the three vows at a time when doubt seems to hinder new growth and new vision among male religious.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Future of the Society of Mary in the US
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
