| MSC Spirituality - A Return to the Founder |
 |
 |
 |
|
by Fr. Dennis Murphy, MSC Vatican II, subsequent Vatican documents and post-Vatican II theology of the consecrated life have all stressed the essential and continuing role of founders in religious institutes. This role is not limited to research in archives; on the contrary it is a continuing activity of the Holy Spirit within an institute: the same Spirit that moved the particular founder in the first place. Eugene Cuskelly (A Man with a Mission, p 110ff) has clearly explained this interplay of past and present. It is also expressed in our new constitutions (CS 3 and 4)
In returning to the past to discover some of the things Father Chevalier had to say about our missionary way of life, the following three principles should be kept in mind. They are simply an application of what Vatican II had to say about the appropriate renewal of religious institutes. As principles they depend on one another and cannot be taken in isolation, otherwise there will be unbalance and lack of proper perspective.
Sociology and strict historical research are needed if we are to understand our Founder properly. It would be short sighted to underestimate them. At the same time, it would be even more dangerous to neglect the importance of faith in God's Providence. To reduce everything to a purely human level cannot do justice to all the facts. For faith in Providence is one of the facts. Throughout his life Father Chevalier had to face what seemed like insummountable obstacles. The more these were overcome, the more he became convinced that the hand of God was with him. If we neglect Father Chevalier's belief in Providence we are left with a view of the world and the Society that is completely out of harmony with his own. It would also be out of harmony with the Gospel we are called to preach. One might perhaps ask whether a diminished sense of God's Providence would be a sign that religious are losing a sense of the special mission of their institute; a sign also perhaps that members are losing a sense of what it means even to be a religious in their institute. One might ask also whether it is a sign of an institute's approaching death. It would be far too simple of course to blame every religious institute for its demise. Probably some die simply because the purpose for which they were brought into existence is no longer needed. Groups, like individuals, also have a natural life span; with the passing of the years they lose their youthful vigour; they become not only old, but old and tired; they haven't any more the energy to continue living. But it is also possible that some die because they no longer really believe in the relevance of the mission God gave their Founder, even when that mission does in fact remain very relevant. They just don't want to be disturbed. The historian David Knowles spent a lifetime studying English medieval monasticism. His research made him reject the Reformation myth that those living in monasteries were evil, dissolute men and women. Overall they were good, well-intentioned people. But too often the original fire, the original enthusiasm had burned out. Their"rule", embodying their way of life and mission, no longer inspired them. On the contrary, their way of life was based on the norms of their time, and not on their "rule". More often than not these worldly norms were good, even admirable, but they were not the aIternative way of life their Founders wanted for them. Today perhaps we would speak of this "rule" as their original charism. Much today is written about the renewal of religious life. Much is also done; and done generously. Many new, admirable apostolic ventures are undertaken. And new structures are devised. And yet some of the institutes that are most outstanding in this are precisely those that are going out of existence most quickly. There is no simple answer to complex questions, whether that answer comes from the "conservatives" or "progressives" - terms that are not particularly useful because they are usually biased and hence inadequate. The sociologist Andrew Greely has admitted that, within the limits of his particular science, he can find no reason why these "renewed" institutes are not attracting many vocations rather than dying out. One piece of historical evidence does perhaps call for reflection. In the past the most effective and vital reforms of religious life have come from a return to the original "rule" of a Founder. This involved more than a return to a "schedule". It was a determined, radical, enthusiastic return to the Founder's original concept of the institute. And it was a retum to what was clearly an alternative way of life; alternative not only to the world, but also, very often, to the main body of the institute they were setting out to reform. The retum to the original inspiration of a Founder, therefore, is not a purely academic exercise. It is a challenge to re-light the original fire that moved him and his followers. Numerous meetings, chapters, publications, plans will not bring this about. Probably the re-lighting of that fire is a grace freely given by God, just as the original fire was. We do not merit it. We can only pray for it humbly and with courage. Humbly, because we accept it will not come merely from our efforts. With courage, because it will inevitably involve sacrifice. Consequently the return to a Founder must be accompanied by a deepening of our prayer life, both individual and communal. Today there are many admirable new forms of the consecrated life emerging in the Church, especially in lay associations like San Egidio, Emmanuel and others. We have much to learn from them. Some of the main points they stress form part also of traditional religious life asenvisaged by the older Founders, including our own. However these new groups seem to be able to carry them out with an enthusiasm that is catching, whereas a tendency in older congregations is to feel too tired to do so. At times these older groups give the impression that their inner fire has burnt out. Sometimes we may be tempted to think that if we could return to a perfect observance of our way of life; if all, or at least the majority, of our members could be perfect; if our works were outstanding for their creativity and relevance, we would flourish again. Sometimes this involves the belief in some original golden age that we have to imitate. But our early members were, on our Founder's own admission, "neither eagles nor saints". A return to the early Church teaches us the same lesson. They were no better than we are. But there is a difference that may be important. They had a sense of freshness, of beginnings, of adventure, of relevance. There was a fire there. But as groups grow older a certain tiredness enters. Although we cannot merit the re-lighting of the original fire, we can certainly put obstacles in its way. We can become culpably blind, obstinately set in our ways, whether those ways be of the right or of the left. We can cease to be disciples: people who are ready to listen and to learn; people who are ready to pay attention to opinions that are not their own or of their own select group. The practice of genuine prayer, which should involve fearless listening, is a way out of this difficulty. Prayer involves openness to the Spirit of God; and in this case openness to the same Spirit who lit a fire in our Founder: the Spirit who moves us to pray (Rom 8:15-16) and who pours God's love into our hearts (Rom 5:5) leading us to active compassion for others (Gal 5:22-26;1 Cor 13:1-7).Some take for granted that the charism of a Founder is to be discovered in his "spirit" and the mention of structures seems out of place. Founders, including our own, had a more integrated and realistic view. A charism is to be found just as much in an institute's structures as in its works and spirit. The three should form a whole. Consequently, it is unhelpful and even unrealistic to contrast spirit and structure. A genuine return to the Founder will integrate them in the same way as he did. The 1969 Chapter in its Documents of Renewal declared that the local community was the basic unit of our Society. The 1974 Chapter qualified this statement by adding "as integrated into the life of the Province". In 1981, our new Constitutions clarified the statement further by adding "integrated into the life and mission of the Province." These amendments were, of course, in keeping with the intention of the 1969 Chapter; but they made clearer that we are not independent communities as in a monastic Order. Later General Chapters felt obliged to make these amendments to the Documents of Renewal because Father Chevalier clearly intended us to be essentially missionary - people who are available to be sent to evangelize everywhere as a Society, as communities, as individuals. And this missionary charism has to be embodied in our spirit, in our works - but also in our structures. We are essentially missionaries, evangelizers. To return to our Founder, therefore, we must, here and now, be open to the world in the spirit of the Gospel. We cannot realistically hope to be in harmony with Jules Chevalier unless we are trying to be missionaries today as he was in his time. We should feel moved to go to those areas where Christ is not effectively present, that is, to those who do not know him; to those who are disenchanted with religion or indifferent to it or even hostile to it; to those who suffer because others do not take the Gospel seriously - the oppressed and marginalized, the poor; to those who have lost the meaning of life; to those who thirst to deepen their love of the Lord (cf CS 24). When this is happening, there is probably more chance that the original fire be re-lit in other areas of our religious life provided we are open to it. The Documents of Renewal not only spoke of the local community as being the basic unit of the Society, they also reversed the order of the chapters dealing with the structure of the Society.The Constitutions now started with the local community, then the province and finally the general administration. It is generally claimed that this avoids an authoritarian pyramid structure. Obviously authoritarianism has to be avoided on every level and at all costs; it is clearly against the explicit words of Jesus. But it is naive to think that it exists only at the top of a pyramid. Authoritarian pressure groups can be actively at work at the bottom as well as at the top. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to portray adequately human relationships in a simple geometric diagram. We have to take into consideration networks of consultation, cooperation, family spirit, charity. All these must form part of any structure of authority if it is to be true to the charism of Father Chevalier. I think that he would be happy with the description of the service of authority found in our Constitutions and Statutes (CS 98104), most of which is taken from the Documents of Renewal. One might be allowed at least to raise the question whether the order of the chapters in our present Constitutions reflects suffciently Father Chevalier's concept of missionary obedience (the availability to be sent) modelled on the pierced Christ on the cross. This is a key point in his concept of the Society. In this light, probably for him the basic unit of the Society was the Society itself. The question, however, is rather theoretical. Independently of the order of chapters in our Constitutions, the Spirit of God is in fact moving us into wider forms of cooperation both within Provinces and between Provinces. A missionary sense of the Society as a whole seems to me to be growing. And the General Administration has become more closely involved in all of this. Probably we are only at the beginning of this development. And creative fidelity will ensure that many good things will continue to happen as we enter more deeply into the missionary charism of our Founder. Though I am convinced that the broad outlines of Fr Founder's spirituality are clear, and will remain clear, I doubt very much whether any definitive study of his (or anyone else's) spirituality is possible. If he touched on real Gospel values, and I am convinced that he did, he touched on something that has many facets and that allows for a variety of emphasis. As a result, different people, at different times, will bring to the study of him their own legitimate interests, preconceptions and needs; they will see the same reality, but see it differently, mainly because they will come with different questions. In all this, Father Chevalier must remain clearly recognisable, because the facts cannot be changed to suit our own likes and dislikes; but the way we put these facts together, the emphasis we give them and the conclusions we draw will vary according to the sorts of questions we ask. A genuine return to the Founder does not produce stereotypes. Fathers Chevalier, Piperon and Jouet shared the same basic concerns, but were far from being stereotypes. The return is rather an attempt to re-awaken in ourselves the inspiration and dynamism that characterised him; to make his basic concerns our concerns. Founders, ideally speaking, are a sort of sacramental given to a congregation. History seems to prove this, because periods of renewed dynamism in religious congregations seem to involve always a return to their Founder, particularly a return to their founding "experience of the Spirit." This is especially true in times of crisis or even of stagnation. There is much theorizing about this today, but we conveniently forget that the genuine refounding of religious institutes has normally taken on the form of a return to the "strict observance" of the original "rule." This should not be dismissed as legalism. Basically it is a realisation that a religious institute was founded as a form of "counter-culture" Not everything Founders say or do is of equal importance.We need to distinguish their basic concerns from other points which were time-conditioned. Nevertheless, if Founders have been really raised by God as part of his plan for the Church and for the world, their basic concerns will remain a source of creativity and challenge in each new circumstance as it arises. Of course, the words an institute uses to describe these basic concerns may differ from those of a Founder; so may the means it uses to implement them; but the basic concerns should remain recognisably the same. If a Founder's basic concerns cease to be a source of creativity, it could be a sign that the God- given lifespan of the institute has come to its end. It could also be that the Founder's basic concerns are still very relevant, but the majority of members are ignorant of them or couldn't care less. This negative attitude can, at times, be hidden under the attractive colours of some new ideology, mission or apostolate. Or even of renewal. But if the original, basic concern of the Founder is not creatively present, the institute is no longer the one he founded. It has already died. If a return to a Founder is to be creative in our time, some hierarchy of values has to be discerned; otherwise a deceptive fundamentalism could result that would smother rather than promote the "original inspiration". No human being is perfectly consistent nor completely without flaws; consequently if we took everything a Founder said or did with equal seriousness, we could find ourselves even coming to contradictory conclusions; we could find precedents for all sorts of choices and actions. In speaking of the danger of absolutising statements made by a Founder, we need also remember that we will be equally misled if we absolutise the needs of our own time. This can also be superficial, deceptive and selective. Sometimes parts of Constitutions written in this spirit can be already dated before the next Chapter. The fault is not the attempt to be relevant, but a lack of historical sense that fails to see a wider vision. We need to be sure that we really know and even value the good points in what we reject. We need to keep in mind that there is a hierarchy of values in Father Chevalier's "original inspiration". Bias is always a risk in this. And so we will never arrive at a sound judgment if we do not allow for a continuing interaction between the return to the Founder, the return to the Gospel and openness to the signs of the times, all carried out in a spirit of dialogue and mutual respect. Truth is comprehensive. It is usually some steps ahead of all the participants in a search or dispute. The Originality of the Founder There is very little, if anything, in our Founder's Constitutions, Rules, Directories and writings concerning religious Life that is original. He borrowed practically everything from already existing material. This is understandable. He mentions explicitly the Sulpicians, the Society of Jesus, the Marists, the Redemptorists, the Vincentians. In other words, he followed the commonly accepted views of his time; just as we do in our time. We need not develop an inferiority complex about Father Chevalier's lack of originality; nor should we underestimate him because of it. Even the great founders like Basil, Benedict, Dominic, Francis and Ignatius were far less original than we at times suppose. This is true also for those Founders who are singled out for their originality. Founders generally borrow heavily from traditional practice and from contemporary movements within the Church. Ignatius of Loyola, for example, would be surprised at ways in which he is exempted from this pattern today. Father Chevalier, like other Founders, selected his sources only after mature deliberation. And he made his own what he borrowed, putting it into the context and scope of the Society he was founding. Julius Chevalier did not feel called to become a Jesuit or a member of any other existing religious institute from which he borrowed particular details. By founding his own congregation he showed that he wanted his followers to have their own special identity and mission. From one point of view, the origin of our Founder's ideas is unimportant. What matters is that he made them his own. Furthermore, the specific nature of a religious institute is not found primarily in its documents or in theories, but in its lived tradition and history. All genuinely Christian groups will possess the same basic principles and values, but nevertheless each will differ, just as families differ, even though possessing the same human and religious values. Thus, even if much of the early organisation in the Formula Instituti happens to be influenced by St.Ignatius'Constitutions, this would not make us Jesuits. The same applies to borrowings from other sources. We are formed by our own particular history and shared experiences. It is there that we find our identity which, on an analogy with individuals, remains always unique. Father Chevalier's starting point was not the Constitutions of other religious institutes. His idea about the Society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was not built up like some jigsaw puzzle comprising bits and pieces taken from various sources as though he had no idea of the overall picture until all these borrowed pieces were put together. His starting point was a deeply personal experience of the incarnate Word of the Father, Jesus Christ, in whom everything - material, human and divine - is united. And this unity, Father Chevalier saw, was the fruit of the love originating in the Trinity itself. And the revelation of this love culminated in the pierced heart of the dead Jesus who gave all out of love for his Father and for us in fidelity to his mission. The absolute abasement of the Word, symbolized in the pierced Heart, is therefore the absolute revelation of how much God loves us; indeed it reveals to us that God of his very nature is love. And this love is not merely love in general, it is a particular form of love that involves God himself being executed as a criminal, taking the side of the oppressed. The pierced Heart reminds us continually of this. That was to be the source of the life and mission to the Society Jules Chevalier founded. It would also be the touchstone for its structures. Mary, as the Mother of Jesus, is inseparable from this vision of Father Chevalier. She is the one chosen by God to give us Jesus and his pierced Heart. Father Chevalier's founding experience had three inseparable aspects: first, a deep personal conviction of the incarnation of God's love for the world; and secondly, a similar awareness of the world's rejection of that love; a rejection which took the concrete form of the various "evils of the time" that were ruining society; and thirdly, a conviction that this love was needed by the world.It was, in other words,similar to the experience of the prophets:an experience of God and an experience of contemporary society in the light of that experience. Father Chevalier did not only experience God and the world; this same experience came to him as an experience of being sent by God into the world. In this, too, he resembles the prophets. His experience of God was essentially missionary. This same experience also inspired him with the desire to form groups of lay people, diocesan priests and religious (priest, brothers and sisters) who would share with him a similar experience and mission. Consequently everything centres around what can be called Fr Chevalier's experience of being sent: his experience of sharing in Christ's own mission into the world and his organization of a group of people to share in that mission. It is absolutely essential to keep this in mind when assessing what Father Chevalier has to say about formation. Even those details which rightly seem to us quaint or even mistaken were, in his mind, geared towards forming members who would share more generously in the mission of Christ as he himself had experienced it when a seminarian,contemplating the pierced Heart of the incarnate Word and the sickness of society. We are certainly right in changing certain structures in formation and in the Society itself that Father Chevalier drew up, but it remains imperative that we do so only in view of attaining by other more effective means the original missionary intention that the Founder had in drawing them up in the first place. Otherwise our justified efforts at reform may well take us backwards rather than forwards. Change is not necessarily reform. Even new, laudable, apostolic ventures are not necessarily reform of what we are meant to be and to do in the Church of our time as Missionaries of the Sacred Heart. |