Abstract Issue 42.6 of the Review for Religious, November/December 1983. ; Revlt!w i:or RELIGIOUS {ISSN 0034-639X), published every two months, is edited in collaboration with the faculty members of the Department of Theological Studies of St. Louis University. The editorial offices are located at Room 428:3601 Lindell Blvd.: St. Louis, MO 63108. Re\'lt~w vor REI.IGIOIJS is owned by the Missouri Province Educational Institute of the Society of Jesus, St. Louis, MO. © 1983 by REVIEW FOR REI,IGIOIJS. Composed, printed and manufactured in U.S.A. Second class postage paid at St. Louis. MO. Single copies: $2.50. Subscription U.S.A.: $9.00 a year: $17.00 for two years, Other countries: add $2.00 per year {postage). For subscription orders or change of address, write: R~:vtr:w ].on Rl.:l.l(;IOtlS: P.O. Box 6070; Duluth, MN 55806. Daniel F. X. Meenan, S.J. Dolores Greeley, R.S.M. Daniel T. Costello, S.J. Joseph F. Gallen, S.J. Jean Read Editor Associate Editor Book Editor Questions and Answers Editor Assistant Editor Nov./Dec., 1983 Volume 42 Number 6 Manuscripts, books for review and correspondence with the editor should be sent to R~-:vlt:w t-on Rt.:tA(;toOs; Room 428; 3601 Lindell Blvd.; St. Louis, MO 63108. Questions for answering should be sent to ,Joseph F. Gallen, S.J.; Jesuit Community; St. Joseph's University; City Avenue at 54th St.; Philadelphia, PA 19131. Back issues and reprints should be ordered from Rt-:\'t~.:w t-'ou Rt.:l.~;tous; Room 428; 3601 Lindell Blvd.; St. Louis, MO 63108. °'Oul of print" issues and articles nol published as reprints are available from University Microfilms International; 300 N. Zeeb Rd.; Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Religious Life: The Mystery and the Challenge John R. Quinn This is the address delivered by Archbishop Quinn (of San Francisco) at the annual assembly of the Leadership Conference of Religious Women in~ Baltimore on August 16, 1983. I~ast spring, Archbishop Quinn was named to head the pontifical commission established to facilitate the p~istoral contribution of bishops to religious life in the United States. ' ~" You have honored me by asking that i speak With you. For the Church recognizes in your lives as religious the continuation of the poverty, the chastity, and the obedience of Christ. What is more: in and through your lead.ership, thousands of your sisters are in this rbom with~us this morning, present through the care you have for the consistency and holiness of their unique form of Christian living, and present because of their choice that you should bear the profoundly sacred responsibility of leadership amon~ the~m. It is no light burden that you carry. The future and the integrity of American religious life lies greatly under the influence of your own liyes: your own union with God, your own humility and integrity, your courage and vision will tell historically upon your communities. The mystery of your lives is inextricably bound up with the mystery of the lives of the sisters whom you love and whom you serve in this ministry. I.t is finally one mystery: a form of life in which Christ is followed with such intensity and at such a level of renunciation that to follow becomes to imitate him concretely and historically in his chastity, his poverty, and his obedience even to the death of the cross. The gravity and the demands of this leadership of communities towards a life of holiness would be hard to exaggerate. That is why you honor .me by asking me to speak with you about it. I know that you have asked me to b~ with you today because the pope has appointed me Pontifical Delegate to head a special commission of three 801 11119 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 bishops whbse task ist9 foster the pastoral service bishops are to offer Ameri-can religious. In a lengthy interview that many of you have read, I have already commented upon'this appeal of the Holy Father to the bishops and on the constitution of a joint group of bishops and religious. Rather than repeat those remarks I should like to extend them, but only in the context of the mystery of religious life'andthe history of American religious over the past twenty years. ~ You know that I am n.o expert in these matters, but what I think, I put before you as an i~nvitation to youi~ own reflections. I hope ,that these remarks will ~mplify several important subjects touched upon in the interview. My reflections then, fall into four parts: --The vision which the Church possesses of religious life --The Paschal MYStery as religious have experienced it in the past twenty years --The papal appeal to the bishbps of the United States --The papal charge to this Episcopal Commission with its Committee of Religious. The Vision, Which the Church Possesses of Religious Life ~, I make n'~ apologies for beginning with the call that the Church recognizes as yours. It alone provides the context or the horizon in which an, y other aspect of religious life can be evaluated or discussed. It is not that religious alone are called to holiness. You know that all Christians are called to holiness. But religious are called to that holiness which consists in a total consecration to God expressed in the unique continuation and embodiment of his life of poverty, chastity and~obedience: not to copy it, but to imitate it--that is to transpose it into the situation of the twentieth .century--so that this form of life would not die within the ChurCh, that it would be a continual reminder to the entire Church, in as public a witness as possible, of the holiness to which every Christian ig ~alled. Not every Christianis called to leave father and mother, husband and wife, children and relatives, to abandon personal property and private career, arid to follow Christ in the direction of one's life as that voice is concretized in the Church and in this given community of disciples. But every ~Christian is called to that detachment and love which give an.absoluie priority to Christ as the communication of God, and the public vows~of religious are. a constant, sacramental reminder of this absolute claim that Christ makes upon us all. Religious life is essentially sac~:amental in the sense that it is an explicit, historical and tangible manifestation of the victorious grace of God emerging to its completion in human signs and actions. And we can never really under-stand it except as sacramehtal. It'is classically true that every human being has to struggle for her integrity, not simply in the sense that a commitment to the truth is' alwayg costly, but in the more basic sense of keeping some consistency, some focus in her life that gives unity to everything else, that makes sense out of'diversity. What is true for the individual is also true of a religious community or a way of life. The Religious Life: The Mystery and the Challenge / 1103 demands~upon your time, the conflicting claims for your attention, are infinite and sometimes irreconcilable. Not that~anyone of them is illegitimate, but that all of them together constitute an impossibility. The expectations in which a religious community lives can be multiple, endless and even mutually contra-dictory. One can feel surrounded and fragmented by their press, wondering at the end of a busy day what was actually accomplished, seemingly more react-ing ~to incessant demands that peacefully moving through them with a cumulative sense of purpose, even beginning to wonder in her darker moments if this way of living has any value or has kept its meaning. A religious or even an entire community can feel eroded, burnt out, because one cannot meet all the demands, and what slips away almost imperceptibly is the vision that makes sense even of the frustration. It is simply imperative for a religious--as ~for any human being with a serious Christian vocation--to have a fundamen-tal focus for her way of life, one that is not negotiable, one in terms of which everything else is negotiated. So the Church over and over again reminds religious what they are for" the whole Church, the vision and the call that is theirs:~you are those consecrated by the call of God to follow C.hrist in the mystery of the Church by continuing his chastity, his poverty, and his obe-dience for the sake of the kingdom of God. It is an enormous gift that is yours, and it is a gift for the whole Church. The P~schal Mystery as Religious Have Experienced It in the Past Twenty Years Sisters, 1 know that these have been hard and demanding years since the Vatican Council. The opportunities have been glorious and the achievements of your communities have been obvious and remarkable--but at what an enormous cost! Let me speak a bit about the history of the past twenty years. One of the staggering parts of this cost over these years has been the, numi~rical diminishment of the congregations of American sisters. Following the direction of .the Council and in obedience to subsequent papal documents such as Ecclesiae Sanctae, enormous efforts were brought to.bear in a sincere and seriously considered move to renew and adapt religious life in light of worldwide cultural transformation and in,the spirit of the Church. Yet .this tremendous enterprise was followed by striking numerical disintegration. Where no~,itiate classes had been thirty, now there were three--if any at all. Convents and institutions were closing all over the nation. The average age of the sisters was going up steadily. Some of the elderly began to fear that there would be no one around to take care of them, while tens of thousands were either leaving or had already left for possibilities and for a future which seemed to them more secure and more promising. You and many other religious may have lived with a sinking sense of :loss as close friends with whom you shared this form of life left. At the same time American sisters were exposed to an unprecedented level of misrepresentation and. attack from both the right and the left. Sisters who had for so long lived as the object of an almost uncritical 1104 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 awe within ~he Church, now were exposed to two implacable critics:~ shrill accusations that their catechetics were destroying the Church, that their every change was a betrayal of their heritage, that they had become worldly, com-promised women who deserve their own~decline; or from the left came the arched suggestions that religious life could only attract the sexually stunted, the sociall3~ and economically insecure, an unenlightened and declining rem-nant from a dated Church. There are the recent plays-on Broadway that dismiss them as unsophisticated fanatics and some "Catholic~' publications make a practice of continual harping criticism exaggerating every conflict out of all ~proportion. There are circles in which to be a woman religious today is to walk into an atmosphere of the joke half-told, of suspicion or unconscious arrogance, sometimes on the part of clerics, bf the question t.hat waits for no answer, of the unrelenting and constant demand for justification. ~ As in every, o~fier group, priests or lay people, so among religious there arr, no'doubt, some who give foundation for justifiable criticism and concern. But, Sisters,--you who are present here today, and otliers who are not with us at this meeting--you hav~ sustained the cost of these years and nothing you have accomplished, no matter how great and obvious, matches what you hay6 accomplished in living in fidelity to your vocation through these difficult years of tensions from outside sources as well as from internal divisions, misunder-standings, and polarizations. Indeed, many faithful American women reli-gious, and not the least those in positions of responsibility, truly passed through a profound experience of the Paschal Mystery. 1 suspect that this experience has yet to register in all its valence within the reflection of American religious. You will find any number of works that counsel religious to count their gifts and number the aptitudes they bring to the Church. This 'is certainly sound advice. But there is very little written about the collective experience of entering into the rejection and humiliations and loss that configured many of you with the Passion--and even less about how profound a fulfillment this experience is of the vocation that is yours, the public witness to the whole Church of the life and de~tiny of Christ.' . When Victor Frankl reflected upon the horror of hi~ experience "of Auschwitz and Dachau, he summarized his own survival with a single line from Nietzsche, that those who have purpose and vision can bear with alrriost any manner of existence: "The person whohas a why to live for, can bear with almost any how.''2 There is a clear and profound sense~of identity in many American religious born of prayer, faith, and a~deep love for the Church, which has enabled them to live through these years of deflated expectations and even searing personal disappoinment. And that identity lies with their configuration to Christ. The great Saint Mechtild of Magdeburg, speaking of a single person, wrote what hasobeen the history of a number of religious con-gregations during thesepast twenty years: ~God leads his chosen children on extraordinary paths. This is an extraordinary path Religious Ltfe: The Mystery and the Challenge A noble road And a sacred way. Go~d himself has trod it.-~ And so it is true that these years, difficult though they have been, have been rich in their accomplishments and productive as religious community after religious community, responding to the challenge of the Council, moved into structures that were more lifesgiving and into more mature forms of commu-nity. In many ways over these years, American women religious found them-selves coming of age, an experience of resurrection. Many American women religious have deepened their lives of prayer, their social compassion for suffer-ing and exploitation, their sense of the international mission of' the Church. Granted that all this is true, still the question must be asked: What is the soui'ce of this new depth if it is not both the Church from which the challenge cam~, and what American women religious have endured and suffered during these twenty years? Our experience of the Resurrection emerges from the experience of the Passion. The life of authentic Christians has always combined them: ". that 1 might know Christ and the power of his resurrection and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that~if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead" (Ph 3:10-11). That is why l, believe it is excessive to see in the present, as some do, "the cluster of the signs of breakdown in virtually all communities." It is my conviction that. we must keep clearly before our minds the great and moving words of Pope John XXHI'~at the opening of the Council: In the daily exercise of our pastorai office, we sometimes have tO listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but~, prevarication and ruin. They Say that our era, in co.mparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is. nonetheless, the teacher of life. They behave as though ~t the time of former Councils everything was a full triumpl~ for the Christian idea and life and for proper, religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those l~rophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand. In the present order of thi,ngs, Divine Providence" is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by humanity's own'efforts and even beyond their very expecta-tions, aredirected toward the fulfillment of God's,superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.4 Certainly, then, the "numerous defections and decreasing n~mber of new members" cannot be denied.5 But if you understand religious life as this pro-found imitation of Christ and share the ma'rvelous vision~of faith articulated by Pope John; then rejection or abandonment or crisis or pain or threat a?e just a breakdown, but also for those who live by faith a more profound entering into the meaning and identity of religious life. Juliana of Norwich put it very simply: "So was our'Lord Jesus afflicted for us; and we all stand in this way of suffering with him, and shall' till we come to his bliss.''6 This is really the second' point I want to make. If religious life is a pi~rsi.stent 1106 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 and public reminder to the Church of the life of Christ, then the drastic numerical decline and threatened extinction of some religious communities is not something completely outside of that witness but within it. Yes, "history is the teacher of life." Each time religious life has entered into this night that can be so dark--the Reformation and the French Revolution come to mind--it has risen from suppression, persecution and virtual extinction with a deeper ecclesial sense and stronger and more effective than before. For example, when Mother St. John emerged from the prison of St. Didier in 1794,.she rebuilt with new resilience from the Terror of the French Revolution the Sisters of St. Joseph. BuLdoes anyone think that her years of suffering in prison had nothing to do with forming this "strong-souled woman to whom the commu-nity owed its regeneration?" Mary Ward, foundress of the Institute of Mary, i~ndured the" condemnation of her community and even imprisonment in Munich,,but her religious genius and her deep faith finally prevailed and continues to influence the formation of communities even through our time. In her last letter to Antonio Filicchi, the dying Elizabeth Ann Seton wrote: "Could you but know what. has happened in consequence of the little, dirty grain of mustard seed you planted by God's hand in America!"7 For the seed to grow, it had to pass into the death that ffas the end of her marriage, the violence which followed her conversion, the endless and seemingly hopeless contradictions, the betrayal of friends, the death of those very dear to her and the shameless indifference of her son, William. All of these lived by faith and had an unshakable fidelity to the Church. In their story each religious com-munity could trace a similar history from its own tradition. You and I both know that the religious accomplishments of the two previous centuries devel-oped from beginnings that were desperate in their poverty or persecution, ridden with the forebodings of some, but fostered by a few religious women of profound, courage, integrit~ and endurance. The successes were not in spite of the suffering any more than we are saved in spite of the Cross. In the myste-rious working of providence, one actua!!y leads ~nto the other.8 This, then, is my keyto understandingmiach that religious have undergone over these years of renewal. Constitutions, chapters, serious analysis, arduous discernment, regrouping of forces, creative efforts at experiment--a!l of these had done what they could. But that they would have.their effect, God gifted them with the cross, brought them into communion with the passion of the Lord. I am obviously not saying that the past twenty years have been absolved from mistakes and eLrors. That would be tO parody my remarks. It would be Sheer fantas.y to imagine that !.n times so complex such far-reaching efforts at a renewal of such magnitude could go forward without some mis't~kes and perhaps some of serious proporti0~ns here an,d there. But What I am saying is that thrgugl~ it all, you have sought to be faithful to the call of the Lord and. you want to love him and serve him in his Church fo.r.~t, he gl0rY of the Fath.er. It isin the Paschal Mystery, in fidelity in the face of Religious Ltfe: The Mystery and the Challenge / 807' suffering, that all human efforts are purified and all human faults and .failings are healed and all things that are ours are gathered by their resurrection into God. The renewal of all religious realities is only through the passion. This is how I see the mystery of your religious life and it is the light in which I read the past twenty years. It provides the religious context in which ! see the task to.which the Holy Father has called the American bishops: "To render special Tpastoral service to the religious of yoiar dioceses and your country., to assist them in every way possible to open wide the doors of their heart to .the Redeemer." The Papal Appeal to the Bishops of the United States So now let me pass to the papal response both to what you are and what you have undergone. To understand the action of the Holy Father, we must attend to an event which has been given great significance in Rome but not yet grasped suffi-ciently everywhere: the anniversary of our redemption. In the mystic symbol-isms and approximations by which we number the centuries, one thousand nine' hundred and fifty, years ago the great Paschal Mystery of Christ took place, the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus by which the world is justified, sanctified 'and saved. To underline this moment as we move toward the third millennium, the pope proclaimed the extraordinary Holy Year, the Jubilee of our Redemption. This action of the pope was profoundly and religiously~serious. Christ as Redeemer hhs been a theme of his preaching and his pontificate, and it formed the subject of his first encyclical. Through this Year of Jubilee, he is calling the whole Church to live more intensely",the central, human-divine event which gives it meaning. It would be impossible to understand many papal initiatives this year unless the centrality and urgency Of the Redemption is grasped. ~ It is within that context that he calls religious especially to renewal. Not just religious. The call is to the whole Church. But especially religious. And why? Because of this eyent,, the redemption of the entire human race by'the action of God in Jesus Christ, they are both witness :and intermediary. They are both signs to the wdrld of what Jesus Christ has done in human life--as they continu6 in a.following of him that becomes a profound configuration-- and they are means, instruments, by which this redemption of Christ reaches into this Holy Year and into this nation. What the pope is saying is simply staggering in its implications: That the .redemption which Christ offers will have its presence in our'times and its efficacy determined in great part .by th'e quality of holiness, of union with God, in the lives of religious. The religious either augments~or limits the effective mercy of God ,within her culture. .~ This is not an abstract statement of speculative theology; it is a concrete reading of what religious have become for the Church. Look at your own personal histories. For many persons whose religious gifts developed at an early age, the most influential persons in their lives,were those women religious I~'01~ / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 whose insightful goodness and care touched their lives more formatively than either was aware of. Look at contemporary Catholic challenges to the social structures of our nation or at the repeated efforts to ref6rm catechetics or at the person who is often among the most resourceful in parish ministry or at the person from whom people spontaneouslyexpect a quality of sympathy and understanding unavailable elsewhere--and you will very often find the Ameri-can sister. In general,'the ,history of our Church in the United States shows religious women to have lived lives of f.rugality and prayer, or persistent service to others even at enormous pers6nal cost and of providing support for those . who needed that support whether this was in education, in medical care or in social works. To cite the papal letter, "Woi'king towards th~ establishment of justice, love, arid peace, they helped to build a. social order rooted in the Gospel. striving to bring generation after generation to the maturity of Christ." To read our historv is to find the American nun at its center, both as a sign and as the~channel ot~ the Redemption. The contemporary reflection upon religious life is just beginning to assimi-late what has been the actual place of religious in the Church for centuries, certainly the Church in the United States. It has been.a theological common-place to say of the bishop or of the priest who" assists him agit in persona ecclesiae, that he acts in the name of the Church, that he represents the Church. Now increasingly~ this is being said of the religious, that the religious represents the Church. But this is just theology catching up with what the average Ameri-can Catholic has always known. The bishop represents the Churchzin its unity, its unity of doctrine, of communion, and of sacramental life. To see the bishop is tobe reminded of this unity whose source is the Spirit of God and which is made real by communion with the Successor of Peter. But the religious repre-sents the Churchqn its evangelical holiness. The Church is not only realized in their lives, but witnessed by these lives. What Teresa of Avila said of herself, "1 die a daughter of the Church." was extended by the great Elizabeth Seton to her daughters in almost her last words to them: "I am thankful, Sisters, for your kindness to be present in this trial. Be children of the Church, be children of the Church."9 It is not that Teresa of Avila 0r~the S~sters of Charity are the only daughters of the Church. All religious by the public witness of their lives are a reminder of that ecclesial discipleship to which we are all called. The religious is not.the only one who represents ~n public witnessthe holiness of the Church, but she is the one who does in this unique way through the open, countercul/ural profession of~the evangelical poverty, chastity, and humble o6edience of Christ. When the Church talks about the public,witness of religious life. this is what she is talking about: not that presentat.ion or witness proper to, the Church,in its hierarchy, but the visible manifestation of the Church,,in its holiness. Just as the unity of the Church is not simply for the bishops but for all the disciples of Christ. so the holiness of the Church is hot just for religious but for all of the disciples of Christ. But it is crucial for the Church that both its unity and its holiness be strongly represented to all, and Religious Life: The Mystery and the Challenge that is why we have both a hierarchy and religious life. Another way of putting thee same point is the pa.pal statement: "By their very vocation, religious are intimately linked to the Redemption. By their consecration to Jesus Christ, ,they are a sign of the redemption that he accomplished. In the sacramental economy of the Church, they are instruments for bringing, this redemption to the People of God." What, then, has the pope asked of the bishops? He has called upon all the ,bishops of the United .States to place themselves at the pastoral service of 0the religious ~ftheir diocese. Let me be more specific. You know, far better than I, that since Perfectae Caritatis and Ecclesiae Sanctae, the religious in the Ufiited States have engaged in an intensive period of renewal. General chapters have been held which took this as their principal object. Constitutions have been revised, and these general laws of religious institutes submitted to the Holy See for confirmation. National unions of the major superiors of men"and women have been formed or have been strengthened .and now flourish. New forms of rdeulcigedio iunst oa naldm aocsatd eevmeriyc afopromstaotliioc°n raenldig oiof ums icnois,ntegrrieagl atrtiaoinni.n Tgh heasve ec.hbaeneng eisn thraov-e exacted great expenditures of energy and time, i~nd have found their fulfill-ment many times in a deepening,of prayer, apostolic creativity, and the sharing of life that characterizes re_ligiotis communities. The question that religious have had to deal with, the central one according to the distinguished Jesuit theologian, Father Thomas E. Clarke, S.J., has been this issue: "How are we to disengage Christian faith from the time-bound cultural expressions and vehicles of the past without a loss of integrity? This is indeed the question at the heart of the anguish, tensions, and polarizations, cha.racteristic of a period . which has turned out to be as much a new Passion as a new Pentecost. No group in the Church, has had to deal with the question with greater seriousness than members of religious communities, and particularly of .American com-munities of religious women.''~0 Father Clarke wrote those lines some ten years ago, and without attempting a defense or an evaluation of each one of them, I think it would be fair to say that these last ten years have continued this experience: the effort to articulate a form of life.that is evangelical in its public ecclesial consecration yet American in the inculturation of this consecration. As this period of "special' ,experimentation" comes to its.close--the period, that is, in which new constitutions wer.e drafted, the Holy Father has asked the Ameiican bishops to enter int~ this process in order to support and to second the genuinely heroic efforts of the religious to strengthen and renew their communities. How are the bishops to do this?' The pope speaks generically of aiding religious in every way possible and lists seven particular ways in which this generic support can be realized~ If I had to summarize all seven, 1 would do it with a~ single word: communication. The bishops are to communicate to the whole Church, by preaching and catechesis, on the nature of religious life and, more particularly, on the link between a religious vocation and the love of God I~10 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 for each and every religious. The bishops are to communicate sacramentally and liturgically with religious; they are-to extend and support the invitations to renewal, in solidarity with the bishops and the faithful; "in th'ose cases, tob,' where individuals or groups, for whatever reason, have departed from the indispensable norms of religious life,~or have even, to the scandal of the faithful, adopted positions at variance with the Church's teaching;~" they are "to proclaim once again the Church's universal call to conversibn, spiritual renewal and holiness." The bishops are to communicate with religious in a mutual, program of work to be established by the Episcopal Com~nission of which I have been appointed Papal Delegate'and which has been strengthened ~by an appointment of a Committee of Religious to act in concert with them. Finally, the bishops are to communicate thrir findings to the Holy Father on the occasion of their ad limina visits this year. It is only in this context that we can ask ourselves the genuinely hard questions which bear upon the future of religious life in the United States. One question which the pope singles out as of immense concern: Why this drastic numerical decline? And under ~his question, perhaps the most important issue: Why are so very few American" wom~n and men interested in becoming reli-gious today? What does that say about our national character, about our Church, and about religio~as life itself?, ls tl~ere any truth in the diagnosis of religious life made by the authors of Shaping the Coming Age of Religious L,fe that the "crises set in from within religious life due to the loss of identity and the inroads of the secularizing process"?.~1 Finally,"it must be asked whether we bishops and priests have been of sufficient sensitivity to the issues which contextualize religious life in the United States. All of these and other important issues can be addressed fruitfully if they are asked by bishops hnd religious together, and asked in such peace and mutual trust that they admit of answers rather than with the kind of accusatory rage that inhibits any ability to answer anything~ These are profound issues on which We must communicate. They touch on~a problem that is common to us all yet larger than any of us, and we expect to be mutually challenged by them. For it isTnot only the problem that is common to us all, but the process as well. It is one we can only address together. Why this insistence~upon communication? Because there has been too little of it. Historically, any proces~ of renewal and any prrcess of inculturation has been opento misrepresentation, misunderstandings, and mistakes. I could take examples from the history of dogma, from the history of rites and ritual, but let me take them from the history of religious life itself. For decades the mendicant orders lay under the suspicion that their form of life was not canonically religious because they were not confined to a monastery. The foundation of the Society of Jesus was opposed ~ because this order did not engage in the choral office and admitted some members whose vows were not solemn. There was enormous opposition tO the original p~ovisions of Angela Merici despite the solemn approval.of Paul HI and these provisions eventually Religious Life: The Mystery and the Challenge gave way" to conventual life and monastic enclosure. The original plans of St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane Frances de Chantal that the Visitation Would be a congregation in which only simple vows would be pron.ounced and~visiting the sick would be the special work of its members also yielded to solemn vows and enclosure. ~But eventually the indulturatiori of active orders of women religious did occur, and they dominated, the extraordinary evolution of reli-gious life in the' nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Iriculturation is an' e~i-gency of the incarnation. It is an indispensable condition for the developmefit and vitality of the Church, and it is inevitably attended by its Share of divisions and struggles and even by mistakes;~2 But if these inevitable struggles are exacerbated by arrogance or impatiencei by the attribution of false motivation or by party interests, then disintegration or alienation result. Attempts at inculturation die only when .communication is stilled, and that is why I wel-come the efforts of the Holy Father to foster commu.nication in all of its forms. For over'the past twenty years as you moved throu~,h this period of experimentation, your partners in dialogue have been the members of your own congregation and other congregations. Now what the Holy See is asking for, is an extension .of this dialogue to a larger group, to the bishops and to the Church as a wh61e. For there is much incomprehension here, either about what the religious "have accomplished or why they have gone in the directions they have chosen, as well as some confusion about what the Church has been asking of religious since the Council. Through the bishops, the religious orders can engage all of the Church in this renewal of religious life: those whom they serve, those with whom they serve, and the bishops in union with the pope whose ministry it is to confirm and validate this service. There is no question.that inculturation carrieso its own dangers. For instance, the adoption.of Stoic and Neo-Platonic terminology during the patristic period, terms.with such .far-reaching implications and ambiguity as apatheia as used by Clement and Origen,-or the eons, nous and the five fundamental gnoses of Evagrius Ponticus, all these seriously endangered the entire monasticmovement.13 1 doubt further if anyone would care to resurrect the secular military ac{ivity of the Templars as an appropriate work for reli-gious: So also today. There is always a danger of having religious life become coopted as just another version of the American way of life,and the challenge given both by the traditions of the order and by the judgments of the Holy See are necessary and critically important if religious are to embody the essentials of religious'life in an American setting effectively'and authentically. This question has been with us since John Ca~ rroll; and, it is not surprising that it continues to be with us now. It is inevitable inca Church so ~universai and with" cultures and perspectives that are so divergent, That is why this extension of the dialogue is so critical, both to explain the achievements of the past twenty years but also to receive serious, supportive, and critical challenge. For there is a healthy and continual dialectic which is always at work within the Church: between the Gospel and its cultural expression, between 1t19 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 authority and prophecy, between the unity of the Church and its manifold cul-tural forms.,And the life of the Church can never be won by suppressing one or another of these moments or by an impatienl destruction of the very pro-cess. All organic foi'ms ofqife consist in a sustained balance between various and seemingly contradictory elements. Yet if they are seen by faith and in their historic interactions, they do not contradict one another but at a deeper level support one another. Thus Freud maintains that the desire to live without ten-sions the desiie to live in unchallenged comfort--is actually a disguised form of the death wish. The tension of balanced contradictions is essential to life. Bul tension does not necessarily make for life. it can also be a destructive disinteg~:ation of life. The difference lies with living faith and wiih communica-tion. Does this moment of tension open to a deeper communication or to the closing of all communication? Th'e Papal Char~g~e to This Episcopal Commission with Its Committee of Refigious , And this brings me to the fourth point ! wish to regmter~. Forethis is the reason that the Holy Father has ~not only sent a letter to the~American bishops, but has established an Fpiscopal Commission to aid'thd bishops in their service of religious and to analyze the reason for the decline in religious voca-tions. For each of these tasks. ,the Holy Father has challenged the Commission to ~work in close collaboration with American religious, to profit fromtheir experience and to assimilate their insights. To facilitate this,communication, I have appointed a Committee of Religious who will work with the Commission of Bishops in a collaborative effort to foster and to encourage religious life in any way that is open for us. We will also be ,consulting experts in various disciplines not'represented on our committee such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and history. Eurther. I have sent a letter to the Presidents of the ICWR. CMSM. and NCCB asking for any suggestions these groups might have to further this work. All of us have something to learn from one another, and the~papal initiative provides an occasion for this mutual ministry. It would be unrealistic to expect of this renewed ef~'ort at communication that.~all disagreements would cease and all misunderstandings be erased. There are too many differences in cultural background, in religious life-history, and even in the critical perspectives on contemporary issues. However, what we can achieve and what owe.must be seeking is reverence and respect for one another, a compassion for'mutual suffering, the building of a sense of trust, and the comprehension, of an underlying common mission in the Church. and from the ~Church. and for the Church as portrayed in all its doctrinal richness in Lumen Gentium. What wi~ can pray for is that we may all.find a continually greater degree of freedom from harsh judgments and stereotyping, irrespecuve of what misunderstandings remain to be,eliminated But how very difficult this will be, Sisters. to.touch the skelsticism.and the anxiety, the suspicions and the misunderstandings that have woven themselves into the fabric of~our,histories Religious Ltfe:, The MysterZ and,the Challenge over the~se years. Whatever their causes, they have become part of its texture and seem indistinguishable from our expectations and hopes. They inhibit communication and they inspire the most pejorative reading of motives while the m~mories of past wrongs rise periodically to reinforce their presence. But what is stronger, please God, is what we share together. For if members of the Church cannot work together to reconcile our histories and our differences, how could we possibly preach forgiveness and reconciliation to a world whose checkered histories and whose differences beggar those in the Church by, comparison. It is patient and loving work that we are about to do together, but your president has wisely written: "Reconciliation is the patient and loving'weaving of threads of tension into a peaceful background in which the Spirit is free to irfiprint the design."14 May this Spirit then be, ~with us in our work. In hope for this new phase of our history we pray with the Psalmist: You will guide me with your counsel and afterwards you will receive me into glory. Who have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire in comparison with you. My flesh and my heart may fail But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever (Ps 73:24-26). And so, To him whose power no~ at work in us can do more than we ask or imagine--to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus through all generations forever and ever. Amen (Ep 3:20-21), NOTES ~For the understanding of religious life which pervades this address', see the recent document of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Seculaf Institutes, Essential Eleme'nts in the Church's Teaching on Religious Ltfe as Applied To Institutes Dedicated to Works of the Apostolate, May 31, 1983. This document is itself a "clarification and restatement" of the Church's teaching on the essential elements of religious life. This prior teaching has been articulated in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, especially Lumen Gentium, Perfectae Caritatis, and Ad Genres, in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelica Testificatio of.Pope Paul VI, in the address of Pope John Paul II. and in the documents of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, especially, Mutuae Relationes, Religious and Human,~'Promotion, and The Contemplative Dimension of Religious l_Jfe, and in the new Code of Canon Law. Essential Elements is the latest attempt 9f the Holy See to fulfill the mandate enunciated by Lumen Gentium: "Church authority ha,s ,the duty, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of interpreting these evangelical counsels. of regulating their practice, and finally of establishing stable forms of living according to them~ (n. 42). ~Victor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, translated by llse Lasch (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1962), pp. xi, 76, and 104. 3See H. A. Reinhold (ed.), The Soul Afire: Revelation of the Mystics (New York: Pantheon 814/ Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 Books, Inc., 1951), p. 206. 4Walter A~bbott, S.J., and J. Gallagher, The Documents of l/atican II. An Angelus Book (Guild Press, 1966), pp. 712 and 713. 5~awrence Cada, S.M., et ai, Shaping the Coming A~e of Religious Ltjre.~A Crossroad Book (NewWork: The Seabury Press, 1979),opp. 49 and 43. 6Juliana of Norwich, Showings. translated from the critical text with an introduction by Edmund Colledge, O,S.A., and James Walsh. S.J./he Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1978),~Cha~pter I.~8, p. 21 I. ~ , . 7Joseph I. Dii'vin, C.MI, Mrs. Seton: Foundress of the American Sisters of Charity (New Yo,~rk: Farrar,-Straus, and Cudahy, 1962), p. 448. aSee Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.,L, "The'Wreck of the Deutschland," #24, 7he Poems of Gerard Manley Hbpkins, edited by W. H. Gardner and~N. H. MacKenzie. Fourth Edi,tion (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 59. o. 9William Thomas Walsh, Saint Teresa of Avila (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1943), p. 579: Dirvin, op cir. p. 453. ~°Thomas E. Clarke, S.J., New Pentecrst or New PassiOn? The Direction of Religious Life Today (New York: Paulist Press, 1973), p. I. ~Cada et al, op. cir. p. 43. ~For the development of the Church's teaching on inculturation, see Lumen Gentium #13 and #17, Ad Gentes #16-18, #22, #26, Gaudium et Spes #53-58, Populorum Progessio #65, and Evangelii Numiandi passim. tJSee Louis Bouyer, The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers (New York: Desclee Company, 1960), pp. 260-302, 369-394. Despite Father Bouyer's sympathetic treatment of Evagrius Ponticus, he finds himself forced to conclude: "Whatever precise meaning his own mysticism may have had for Evagrius, it would be difficul[ to deny that his expressions intro-duced a lasting threat into the Christian mystical tradition: the fatal attraction of pure abstrac-tion. A neglect of Scripture, of dogma, in favor of a 'contemplation' that runs the risk of being no more than a state of psychological vacuity is not, as experience has abundantly shown, for minds nourished on the tradition which we can now call'Evagrian, a merely chimerical danger" ibid., p. 393. For the division of monasticism into two camps, see ibid., p. 380. ~4Sister Helen Flahcrty, S.C., The Presidents Reflect--After Two ]~ears. in Women: Weavers of Peace. Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Conference Report, 1982-1983, p. 6. The Religious as Witness All persons consecrated to the Lord enter the category of living witnesses to the existence of this ~'Other," of a Reality so "different" from the reality verifiable by,the senses;;and their whole lives, individual and community, are committed to the final aim of recalling mankind~ distracted by the temptations of material goods, tol thd reality Of the supreme Good, tb,the attraction of values whichare not visible, but~are true'and much higher: ; Therefore, when the documents of the Council and the subsequent directives of the,' Church insist upon the need for the renewal of religious life, they-intend above all to ".~emphasize the need for a renewal of an "interior" nature to be realized in such a way'~ that by eliminating the shadows of useless thingff or superstructures it may more easily become the transparency of God before the eyes of today's men.--John Paul IL To the Women Religious in Albano, 19 September. 1982. L'Osservatore Romano, I1 October 1982. p. 5. Why They Leave: . Reflections of a Religious AnthropologiSt Gerald A. Arbuckle, S.M. Father Arbuckle, asocial anthropologist, is an Assistant General for his congregation: The article ~s the resultgf both contacts and form~! stud~ies he has made with religiou~s in America and Asia. He now resides at the generalate of his cong~regation: Padri Maristi; Via Alessandro Poerio,~63; 00152 Rofiaa, Italy. The recent call by John Paul II for a review 6f the reasons behind the'sharp drop in the number.,of religious within the' United States is timely. But, if this review is to realize ~its aims, those concerned in the study must seek insights from many disciplines, e;g. history, psychology, cultural anthro-pology. In this paper, I offer some insights from cultural anthropology. I believe~that -,~ " -many religious, individually,or as communities, following the combined:~ impact of the social'RevoiUtioh of Expressive Disorder of the 1960s;and early 1970s and of Vatic.an II; went into a~state of cultural malaise, anomie, or what is~popularly called culture shock; . .: : ". . ~ -the cultural and historical~situation in which religious ~life now finds itself today in, the United States is ripe for deep interior.revitalization, provided the opportunities are vigorously grasped. ¯ ~ I will explain these staiements. But, first we must clarify a much confused word-Zculture. Paul VI touched the heart of the meaning of culture when, in Evangelii Nuntiandi, he referred to the signs and 'symbols of a people) Anthropologist G. Geertz takes the same approach, though he concentrates on symbols, when he defines culture to be "an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in 815 816 / Review for Religious, Nov.-De~., 1983 symbolic forms by means oLwhich men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towardqife."2 In this sei~se, cul-ture is something living, something giving .meaning, ~direction, identity to people in ways that touch not just the intellect, but especially the ~heart. One cannot define symbol without reference to feelings, to the heart. A symbol is any reality that by its very dynamism or power leads to (i.e., makes one think about, or imagine, or get into contact with or reach out to) another deeper (and often mysterious)~.reality through a sharing in the dynamism that the symbol itself offers (and not by merely verbal or additional explanations). So a symbol is not merely a sign, for signs only point to the signifie~t. Symbols represent the signified, they carry, meaning in themselves, "which allows them to articulate the signified, rather than merely announcing it.''3 New symbols do not take root in the hearts of the people overnight as substitutes for other symbols. Time, experience are necessary for new meanings to develop, new identities tO emerge. Hence, if a people's way of living or culture is dramatically undermined for whatever reason, the effects ~an be traumatic. A feeling of malaise, anomie or normlessness, will emer[ge. The sense of identity and security is lost. ~It has been said that the American Catholic Church was "the best organ-ized and most powerful of the nation's subcultures--a source of both aliena-~ ti0n and enrichment "for those born within it and an object of bafflement or un~a~iness for others.TM In other words, while Catholics shared certain symbols in common with other Americans, many key or pivotal symbols tl~at gave meaning, id~.ntityand security to their lives came from their adherence to the Church. But, as a result, of the combined impact of the Revolution of Expre~s-sive Disorder and Vatican II, the stability a~nd the extraordinary security and cohesiveness of the Church's subcultural way of life in America were shattered in ways that are only now becoming better understood. The more cohesive and itefensive a subculture, th~ more dramatic and traumatic the breakup once key or pivotal symbols are effectively attacked. Vatican II asked that the Church open itself to the world. Cultures of people were to be:understood and evangelized. The Council., therefore, sought to counter~Caih01ic "ghettoism," something that had hampered the missionary thrust of the Church for centuries. But the world to which Catholics had to turn was a world in bxtraordinary turmoil. Secondly, the~e were aspects of mainstream American culture that were (and remain) particularly challenging to ~'vangelization.Many Cathblicslwere just not. prepared to face the situation. One American commentator perceptively noted that "in the beginning, around 1964, the turmoil that was to shake the Church was like a cloud on the horizon. Within two or three years storm clouds filled the sky. And by the mid-1970s, the U.S. Catholic Church was a tempest-tossed.institution in total~ d~sarray, o,L~kew~se,~Peter Berger said that Catholics. back in 1961, were, unlike~thei~ Protestant brothers, still sitting pretty on their Rock of Peter, secure in their numbers, in the allegiance of the faithful. Within five years, he,. Why They Leave / 817 says, the Catholics suffered the same fate as the rest; they were rushing to find "plausible lifeboats with the rest of us.TM I will first.explain what is meant by the Revolution of Expressive Disorder and then indicate various mainstream American values or symbols that partic-ularly challenge evangelization. It will then be seen that once Catholics left their neat and tight subculture and were thrown unprepared into a world in cultural turmoil and into an American cultural system they had effectively resisted, for decades, the consequences were understandable. Understanding the Revolution of Cultural Disorder It is impossible to summarize with any marked degree of accuracy just what happened in the 1960s and'early 1970s. Sociologist Robert Bellah describes the cultural revolution in the western world as "an upwelling of mystical religiosity";7 Gerald Howard considered the period as "a spirited~ wildly inventive era--a decade of great social and political upheaval when ideas and customs collidedqn every corner of American° society."8 Not only America, but the entire western world underwent a transformation in the assumptions and accepted practices which form the cultural foundations of the daily lives of ordinary people. The transformation, one of the swiftest and most dramatic in recorded history, began as a form of cultural~rev01ution among a small group of campaigning radicals, and ended by changing some of the most profound habits and assumptions.9 What was considered shocking in 1967 or 1968 is so commonplace today as not to be noticed. The most common characteristic of the 1960s' Revolution of Expressive Disorder was the symbolism of anti-struciure, anti-order, anti-predictability. It was essentially an attack on boundaries, limits, certainties, taboos, roles, sys-tems,, style, predictabilities, form, ritual. It was an attempt to make ambiguity and uncertainty, not a mere passing feature of~ life, but a way of living in itself. But the revolutidn had its major contradiction in this--on the one hand there was the push towards structureless iiadividualism with its burning zeal for self-fulfillment, but on the other hand there was also the push towards the collectivity in which the individual became smothered by the collectivity. Sociologist Bernice Martin points" out that in the field of the arts, for example, the~boundaries most severely attacked were those between the public and private spheres, male and female, uncertainty over certainty.~° In the case of Andy Warhol, for example~ the sexual identities of his portraits are often left uncertain or are inverted; he makes Marilyn Monroe look like a transves-tite. Educational institutions and teachers took, a severe pounding. The radi~ cals' demands for instant and total intimacy in human relationships, instant "turning on" and .entertainment, played havoc with teacher security, identity, well-being. Given the stress on the immediate and on the functional, it was inevitable that anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism helped undermine educa-tional programs and institutes.11 In the field of religion, new or revived cult movements fitted neatly into the search for either extreme individualism or Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 collectivity, e.g., Moonies, Krishna Consciousness, communes. Even the estab-lished churches did not remain untouched by the drive for anti-structure, for instant community experience, horizontalism, subjectivity in liturgical life. If the liturgy does not give a "peak feeling experience" then, it was argued, it cannot be an authentic ritual. At this point, it would be helpful to use the models of cultures or societies that anth~opoligist Victor Turner evolved.~Z He would distinguish two types of cultures. First, there is societas, a type in which there is role differentiation, structure, segmentation, and a hierarc~hical system of institutionalized posi-tions. Most people live most of their lives in cultures that come close to ttiis model. The second type is called.communitas or liminal, that is a type of culture that is undifferentiated, homogeneous, in which individuals meet each other integrally and not as segmentalized into statuses and roles. He argues that life is a process whereby individuals or groups of people pass from societas through communitas .to societas. Commanitas comes alive in situatiohs whereby structures have been removed or reducedto a minimum; it :becomes tangible in times of transition: e.g., religious novitiates, charismatic,prayer meetings, among crowds at a thrilling baseball game, in moments of crises. In all these instances, people lose their outstanding social differences or statuses. Let us assume, by way of practical example, that after a shipwreck, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, the President of the United States, .the Queen of Eng-land, a stoker from the s.unken ship, and two passengers who work for a living as ship stew~irds, find themselves in the sole-surviving lifeboat. Confronted with the dangers of, the sea, the' survivors experience a period of communitas, the experience of belonging to common humanity. Titles become unimpor5 tant--survival becomes the value. But communitas can never be sustained-- and has never been sustained--simply because the normal society ultimately ¯ demands some form of structur.e, some form of predictability. For~example, once the lifeboat reaches the safety of a harbor, it is inevitable that titles and statuses become once more'important. People tiave a need to know differences and to act accordingly. But some form of' communitas remains.essential for the survival of all societies; some form of withdrawal--secular or religious--is required as a prerequisite to a new level of involvement in structure. People need to experience for periods of time basic common human values, like brotherhood, the common Fatherhood of God, nationhood, in order to keep their lives balanced. According to 'Turner, therefore, life is a process whereby persons pass from structured "ordinary" living to communitas experiences and back once more .to "ordinary," living. The process is constantly repeated if the particular society is to be maintained and if individuals are to achieve ,human satisfaction and stability. In the communitas periods many of the symbols of relationships, values,~norms, which prevail~ in the° domain of the daily pragmatic structures are reversed, suspended~ reinterpreted, or replaced by a wholly _other set of symbols and ways of acting. The period in which Why They Leave / 819 comrnunitas occurs is called liminality.13 There are periods in history when whole nations, in varying ways or in parts, seek to go through either in an almost spontaneous or planned way communitas or liminal periods. It may take the form of a widespread burst of nationalism, for .example as took place in Britain during and after the Falklands' crisis. But when the models are applied to the 1960s, it is evident that the emphasis in politics, education, arts, religion, was on the evoking of the communitas. The liminality was marked by anti-structure, unpredictabil-ity, taboo-breaking--all that we have described above. Many sought to live liminality not jus.t for part of their daily lives or for short periods, but for life. In the case of religion, the emphasis, as in the rest of the counterculture movements, was on the fraternity of man rather than on the Transcendence, on experience and emotional interaction rather than on abstraction and quiet-ness. In communitas experiences, especially of the spontaneous type such as marked the 1960s, intellectual interaction or argumentation have little or no effect. Euphoria must run its course, in other words. As noted, there are benefits from liminalperiods for the well-being of societies and individuals, but excesses can become counterproductive. As the poet W. H. Auden put it: "The Road of Excess leads more often than not to The Slough of Despond."14 By the early 1970s, the cultural liminal revolution was drawing to a close. As Berger notes "the idea of 'permanent' revolution is anthropologically an absurd fantasy . There are fairly narrow limits to the toleration of disorder in any human society."15 In this, he was agreeing with the analysis of Victor Turner. Margins, structures, boundaries--all returned, though rarely as before, across the whole spectrum of human activity, e.g.- politics, economics, education. Despite the enormity of the upheaval there were some very positive effects of the cultural revolution, such as a sharpening concern for human rights, a heightened awareness that institutions must be constantly checked for impersona!ism and injustices, and.that religion relates one not just to God but also to people . Some Key Symbols in American 'Cultural Life The anthropologist tries to find the key symbols that together bind~people within the one cultural stream. United States is so vast a country that there is'a realodanger of being simplistic in any gffort to find key symbols~ However, even given this caution, I still feel it is possible to point to relevant key symbols that emerge either in advertising or in everyday literature. The following are symbols that to me are important,~if we are to consider religious life and its relevance within the contemporary .United States. These symbols existed prior to the Revolution of Expressive Disorder. In some instances they were severely questioned by the counterculture, but they nonetheless continue to be evi-dently present. In some cases, in fact, the symbols became, reinforced by the revolution, e:g. individualism, the search for self-fulfillment. 1120 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 The Symbols of Personal Freedom/Individualism, Achievement, Self-Fulfillment Evoke Increasing Loneliness and Alienation Within Society That sharp observer, de Tocqueville, noted decades ago--as something already emerging--the problems of growing individualism, loneliness and alienation: "Selfishness blights the germ of all virtues; iridividualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; butqn the long run it attacks and destroys all 'others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness.''~6 Recently, social-economist Amitai. Etzione built his critical revirw of American life and future on the same insight,t7 Historian David Potter, noted earlier, that "Americans, having demanded a higher degree of freedom, have paid a higher price for it in the degree of their psychological isolation." He.then pointed out that as a consequence of this isolation a sense of personal inadequacy and insecurity inspired by a relentlessly competitive system has produced some of the most Characteristic forms of mental illness in America.18 The more individualism is pushed the more the bonds binding people to the group and the common good are weakened. Hence, Bellah could conclude, with deepening sorrow, that as the result of the overstress on individualism "marriage, friendship, job .church are dispensable, if these don't meet my needs" [my italics].19 ~ymbols o.f Youth and Good Health Downgrade the Positive Qualitites of Aging and Suffering Christopher Lasch writes that American society "defines productivity in ways that automatically exclude 'senior citizens'."2° J. Tetlow recently observed that the American value system not only demands that one be healthy, but that one feel healthy. He comments that "experienced religious when they enter what the: Church has known as the 'dark night' for centuries, think they probably need psychiatric therapy.TM Given these attitudes to the key symbols of youth and good health, it is understandable if the agonies of death and dying fit uneasily into the American folkways. The dead must "look peaceful and fresh',; there must be no sign of suffering having taken place?~ Symbols of Material Consumerism Demand that PleaSure and Satisfaction Be Immediate ~ The ease with which goods can be discarded and replaced by "better ones" reinforces the feeling that one should not tolerate problems for too long~ The tolerance threshold becomes increasingly lower?3 One can include within the symbols of material consumerism, the symbols also of pragmatism and noise. A guiding force isthe assumption that what is useful for satisfaction is good; it generates all kinds of experiments, some good, ~some not good, Inevitably the drive for experimentation, for personal satisfaction and fulfillment, can be inirhical to the~peace essential for deep reflection and contemplation. But the world of mass media,advertising does not help the situation. It intrudes, as though by right, at so many points of one's daily life and so often in a noisy Why They Leave / 821 way. Daniel Bell blames the 1960s for an intensification of the pressure for more and more noise.24 1 doubt if the situation has changed. Vatican II and the Cultural Revolution Collide The dramatic opening paragraph of Gaudium et Spes of Vatican II pin-pointed a vital thrust desired by the fathers, a thrust founded in the Gospel imperative to go. out to all with the saving and consoling news of salvation: "The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of men of this age, especially those who are poor.or in any way afflicted, these too are the joys and hopes, the.griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ." Committed Cath-olics held within a ghettosubcult'ure could no longer consider their evangeliza-tion obligations to be coterminous with that subculture. Liturgies were to be adapted to local cultures, having in mind also the community orientation of the Church. Catholics had now to.enter loving and listening dialogue with the once "suspect" Protestants. As regards religious, "the manner of living,, praying and working should be suitably adapted to the physical and psychological conditions of today's religious and also., to the needs of the apostolate, the requirements of a given cul(ure" [my italics].2~ Quitg independent of the cultural upheaval hitting the western world at t~his point, the above new theological and pastoral emphases were sufficient in themselves to make many question the validity of the contemporary under-standing# of the pivotal symbols~ within the Catholic subctilture of America. Recall the point made earlier: the more cohesive and integrated a subculture is, the more violent and traumatic will be the consequences--once pivotal symbols are shaken ~r undermined. We cannot abstractin fact from the reality that the movement to shake Catholics into becoming pastorally aware of the world beyond their ghetto als0 coincided with a world in "unnatural" turmoil, a world of intense countercultural liminality: The combined effects of the theological and cultural changes of Vatican II and the cultural revolution left Catholics breathless, lost in what seemed to be an. ever-increasing malaise, loss of direction. People felt stunned, rootless, never sure what was to happen next within the Church that for centuries s~emed unchanging. They became exposed to movements, pressures they could not understand. The mass of intricate cultural supports that had protected the ghetto Church for over a hundred ybars within the United States were suddenly removed. One can only agree with Avery Dulles' assessment of the period after the Council: "In most countries the decade since the Council has been one of internal conflict, confu-sion, disarray. The Church seems, for the first time in centuries, to be an uncertain trumpe~."26 Let us look a little closer at some of the ways in which the confusion or disarray evolved with such speed. We will then be in a better position to understand why the numbers of religious have so dramatically dropped. Within the.Catholic subculture, prior to Vatican II, it was inevitable that Church authority, as represented by bishops, priests and even religious, held 822 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 . generally a socially and pastorally honored position. Their roles and the expec-tations of the people were clearly defined~ and supported by what ,was thought to be an unchanging theology. Vatican II returned to important emphases as regards liturgy, the role of ecclesial aut.hority within the community of the faithful, the role of laity in the apostolate. These emphases, in themselves would have been sufficient to shake and question the status of priests and religious wiLhin the subculture. But I~would agree with~sociologist George A. Kelly that th.e.~dramatic undermi~ning of pivotal symbols of authority~ priesthood, reli-gious life (according to the meanings then given them) was caused in no small way by the inse.nsitive attacks on the symbols by Catholics themselves. Armed with ,the anti-structure symbols of the cultural revolution, the attackers some-. times~used a most remarkable viciousness: One well-known~civil rights leader p~ublicly referred to the Church as "a0iwhore"!27 Priests and religious even seemed to seek out publicity when they left their vocational commitment. Little wonder if,~the faithful had their confidence~in the symbols undermined. The confidence of many priests and religious was also not infrequently threatened. But the confusion and disarray was.helped along even by sympathetic people holding important positions within the subculture. Let me explain. An anthropologist, in studying a particular culture, will seek out the authority structures and symbols of the people. He .will seek to find out how the credibil-ity of the symbols is maintained.But of similar importance is the study of ritual, whether ii be~ civj.'l, secular or religio~us. Ritual is vital to the maintenance of a group's life. One may disturb a people's identity by effectively attacking their ritual. The speed with which .liturgical changes took place following Vatican II, not the changes themselves, left concerned anthropologists aghast.~ Ritual consists primarily of symbols, not signs. As we noted, signs can be substituted for other signs with no problem at all. But not symbols, for they relate to the.hearts old, people. Any change must be done with extraordinary sensitivity and, with full involvement of the people themselves. Victor Turner and Mary Douglas, both leading anthropologists in the study of ritual, both Catholics, have commented~on what happened. At .one point,t; in hisqengthy analysis, Turner notes that '~one cause of the large-scale.withdrawal of many Catholics from the institutional life of the Church who still think of themselves as Christians (and sorrow as widows do for the death of someone~beloved) is the comprehensive transformation of ritual forms under the influence of theoreticians drawn from the positivist and materialist camps . ,,2s It was not a questign of ~topping change. But it was rather a question of how that change was to take place. Mary Douglas is equally strong in her analysis.29 ~Inevitably, religious shared the "blame" in the minds o~f the faithful for disruptive and insensitive,speed with which so many changes took place. Their credibili(y and prestige .as educators was undermined. As their status within the subculture became confused owing to the breakup of the subculture itself, religious often did not develop a more community-oriented, esteemed status as sensitive educators. For this reason they became not particularly attractive Why They Leave / 823 leaders to follow, 'thus contributing to the falloff in vocation recruitment. Religious and Culture Shock One contemporary commentator,~i). Callahan, incisively and sympatheti-cally noted that "it is nbw"trivial to say that W~stern culture is undergoing a crisis, but it is not trivial to live it." In order to situate what happened to many priests and religious, it is relevant to quote his next poii~t: "To live it and not just talk about it means that one takes upon one's shoulders, willingly or unwillingly, all the burdens of confusion, uncertainty and a clouded vision."3° Priests and religious were key symbols within the American Catholic subcul-ture. Suddenly, in.ways never before expected, the prestige and~acceptance of these symbols was undermined. Many priests and religious, trying to live with ~the challenge, struggled to shoulder all the burdens, confusion in roles, uncer-tainty of pastoral and vocatignal goals that resulted from the cbmbined impa~t of Vatican-Ii and the cultur'~Frevolution. Little wonder that many went ifito a state which we call, culture sh~ck---"culture" because the subculture that had defined in n.o ~small ~way their identity and security had now collapsed. Louis Luzbetak defines culture shock as "a reaction that is blind and unreasoffed, a reaction that is but a subconscious flight or escape from a culturally disagree-able environment."3t I believe four types of escape on the part of religious from a culturally disagreeable environment can be detected: 1. Vocational Withdrawal ,o Vei'y few religious prior to Vatican II were trained either to understand empirically the nature of culture, Culture change, or even to appreciate that theology is open to progressive deepening and therefore change. Just one insight will help to appreciate the situation. Prior to Vatican II the word "sociology" was most generally synonymous with "social ethics." It was a most rare seminary or formation house that included any serious teaching in empiri-cal social sciences; given the stress on the a priori method, recourse to the empirical social sciences was not seen as useful or important. It is scarcely surprising therefore if many religious became utterly confused about what was happening as a consequence of Vatican II cultural and theological changes and of the impact of the cultural revolution of the 1960s--so confused, in fact, that they withdrew from religious life as their only method of coping. The missiolo-gist, Walbert Bfihlmann, recently cited a speaker's comment at a Rome meet-ing. The speaker noted .that "if some 40,000 priests and religious have 'given up' in the last ten years it is not least of all because they had not been prepared for the cultural, sociological, and theological °changes that called everything into question. This is why they could not cope with the changes."32 2. Reverse Nativism By "reverse nativism" I mean that religious struggled to escape the frustrating challenge of change by going back to the symbols of predictability 1~24 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 and certainty of the former Catholic subculture. And they sought to remain in the security and identity of the past. This is not an .uncommon type of reaction on the part of adjustment to dominant cultures or rapid change. The Lefebvre movement is an example of this type ~of'reaction within the Church. History shows that while this t.ype bf turning away from reality gives security and identity, it can only be a temporary situation. Reality must at some time or other be faced up to': : 3. Cultural Romanticism A person who suffers from "cultural romanticism" is one who, in order to cope with culture ocon.flict, believes the culture he is .noW faced with is the culture. D~ramatically. discarding the ~past,.he avidly turns to the new way of living, new values, with a most uncritical approacO. He is just blinded by what he assumes to be the beauty of all around him. ~In.~the case of religious faced with the 1960s crises, many, having lost direction; capitulated to the counter-culture movement. Hence, they sought the '~instant" community, as much spontaneity as possible without structures in religious communities. Eventually a tiredness emerged, 9 hollowness, for as we have seen ther~ is a htiman limit to constant change, constant spontaneity. Not only did this overstress on self-fulfillment and feeling, have tragic effects on religious communities, but it also led to unnecessary crises within formation programs and seminaries. Formation programs and seminary systems generally collapsed since they were based~ on a model of service that fitted the old Catholic subculture, but not the new pastgral stress inherent in the community model of the Church. Formators were at a loss to know what to do. Many gave way to the pressures of the counterculture and dispensed with structures. The consequence of this is well described~by Henri J. M. Nouwen in an article published i.n 1969. He claimed that all formation has "as its primary task to offer a meaningful structure which allows for a creative use of the student's energies." When such meaningful structure is lacking, then the student becomes excessiv.e, ly dependent on endless self-scrutiny, affir-mation by superiors and others. The final result of this process is individual .,and group depressionP3 I am sure that as a consequence of the confusion into which formation programs fell, many young religious students left, as well as formation staff since they were being subjected to criticism from all sides--from students, from major superiors, from fellow religious (there are a~ many experts on formation as there are members of a province!). Other interesting signs of romanticism could be seen. Religious were asked ' by Vatican II to adapt to the local culture. Many took this literally, claiming that the only way to get close to the people was to be "one with them." Hence, life-styles changed in an effort to achieve this identification; in the process, of course, religious beqame so identified with middle-class styles that they.were indistinguishable from this class~and lost all credibility in consequence. So Why They Leave / 825 some religious were forced to face the fact that for them religious life no longer held any purpose. Sometimes, crises occur'red when religious overstressed the self-fulfillment "craze" of the counterculture. The more individualistic :they became,.the weaker their ties with the community. As Robert°Bellah noted (as quoted above), such people are apt to opt out of service to the community once they are placed under any pressure from the common good. Not infrequently, religious, having moved out of traditional apostolates, found themselves as social workers, civil rights' leaders, development workers. In .these new roles they sought to give meaning to theirs, lives as religious. But the more they tried to obtain identity from their work of service, the more elusive it became. For religious life has meaning first and foremost from the radical commitment to Jesus Christ in faith, When this reality was overlooked, religious eventually found themselves out of religious life. 4. Cargo Cultism ~ Thomas Merton, in the'Very year of his death, felt that many in the Church (and therefore in religious life) had adopted what is called a "cargo cult" approach tO ,renewal. Anthropologists, particularly those who work in Melanesia, South Pacific, have long documented such cults. People destroy buildings, gardens, and then build new structures, e~g. primitive airstrips or boat jetties. Then, with the .old structures'gone and the new ones established, the people' would sit and wait for the ancestors to fly. in with the goods of the western world. If the ancestors did not arrive, then they recognized that they had chosen the wrong structures or used the wrong magical words.~-Merton rightly recognized that this is something that pertains not only to so-called primitive Melanesia. He felt ttlat the same cargo approach was alive and well ih the ChurchP5 Once chapters of renewal had b~en held, fine documents written, beautiful words spoken, new structures of government introduced, then religious expected that by sitting and waiting the renewal would take place in consequence. But, as in the case 6f the cults in Melanesia, nothing of the kind happened, unless the religious concerned tackled renewal and conver-sion. within the h'eart. Only this radical.conversion to the Lord would ulti-mately make structures or documents effect their aims. The more this was not recognized, the more religious became disillusioned and angry, their anger often being directed at structures and superiors, which, sometimes resulted in the withdrawal from religiou~ life. The structural changes, e.g. in government, were often done with consider-able zeal and hope, under.standably legitimizing these changes as the response to the call to adapt to the local culture. Some provinces of religious congrega-tions, for example, opted to govern according to the American system of "checks and balances." One senses at times that this was done without suffi-cient critical analysis. It was felt that this civil system would check any further abuse by authorities. The aspiration was somewhat cargo cultish, since other problems have emerged that have on occasions exacerbated the situation and 1126 / Review for Religibus, Nov.-Dec., 1983 made government even more difficult to operate within the religious provinces. Arthur Schlesinger asserts that "theFounding Fathers, who saw conflict as the guarantee of freedom, grandly defied the inherited wisdom [in the Constitu-tion] . . . [which] thus institutionalized conflict in the very heart of the American polity."36 Conflict is part and parcel of being~human,.~but its institu- ¯ tionalization within a religious congregation's government may not be quite what is needed if religious life values are to predominate. Secondly, David Potter pointed 'out that the "pervasive repugnance for any sort of personal authority has lain close to the heart of the American idea of freedom. It has colored Americans" distrust of power, has encouraged them to diffuse power when they could, and has caused them to shrink from admitting its existence when they could not prevent it from being concentrated."37 There has been a "cargo cultish" assumption that the civil system of government would solve so many problems, but I belibve in uncritically open-ing themselves to this system, religious have ~pted for a form ofigovernment which can be so fearful of moving without what might be called an-"orgy of consultation" that a paralysis sets in, At a time of decline in vocations and challenging new pastoral needs, no government should be so subject to paraly-sis. Governments in religious life today must consult widely; for this~to take place there must be trust on the part of all concerned. If not, lit~le~wonder if major superiors resign, and well~-suited potential leaders refuse to assume office for fear of being paralyzed by so many checks and~balances and the fear of built-in conflict. I .suspect this is a-significant factor behindi the burnout of superiors and the not infrequent .departure.from religious life. I also believe that religious who have assumed a "cargo cultish" approach to religious life structural changes are merely delaying,the moment of truth for themselves and their congregations. .~.~ I suspect that when the civil system of.government was adopted uncriti-cally, provincial chapter participants did not ask the right questions, e.g., "What is religious life government for?" "Did the founder insist on :a form of government that he considered integrally.~related to the realization of the congregation's aims?" David J. O'Brie.n, commentingin 197-2 on the uncritical Americanizing drive in adaptation noted a degree of disillusionment emerging: "The notion of Americanizing the church now appears to many as unworthy, even immoral."32 Simplistic "cargo cultish:' attitudes about government struc-tures may be waning. I am°inclined to think so. Revitalization of Religious Life: Anthropol~ogical ~sights Today religious life remains in the state of the liminality, of uncertainty, of co~fusion, that has mar.ked the period since Vatican II. Now one hears the near-despair question: How is it possible to survive? Religious life will survive, even if a significant number of congregations are expected to die in the years to come)9 There will always be people in the Church who will want to extend and~ radicalize their baptismal commitment. These will try to express the life Why They Leave / 827 and holiness of the Church in all its radicalness. ~And they will want to do this in groups in order to be supported in ~their~eff.orts. I believe, however, even though malaise and confusion are still affecting religious life that we'a~'e on the verge of an in-depth revitalization. The Church is in a cultural and historical stage that parallels the vital points of:growth in the Church, namely the post-Reformation and the post-French Revolution ¯ periods. Both periods had been preceded by extraordinary social, political, cultural and religious upheaval. The affect of the French Revolution and its associated forces in Europe on religious life was traumatic. It is estimated that on the "eve of the French Revolution, worldwide membership in all the men's religious orders stood at approximately 300,000; by the time the Revolution and the secularizations which followed had run their course in France and the rest of Europe, fewer than 70,000 remained.''4° The Church wffs stunned'by what seemed a calamity. Yet in fact eventually an extraordi-nary number and variety of new congregations emerged fro~m tliis liminal period of shock and confusion. Similarly, after the Reformation, there was.a period in which people placed hopes in new ecclesiastical laws, structures, to bring them through the crisis. But, their approach asked of legislation and new structures what they could never do alone; their .approach was "cargo cultish." Eventually the truth came home to the sincere--the way of renewal is.born out ~ of the near-despair 'question asked in faith--how is it possible to survive? Ultimately, only by a committed return to prayer, faith, union with Christ, the original charism of the particular founder and the prayerful discernment of the ,needs of the ~world, As one historian put it, the Council of Trent, despite its ' tortuous length, really.effected nothing in depth until, under "the reforming influences of men like St. Ignatius Loyola, the stress turned to personal prayer and abnegation, and a renewed commitment to sacramental life. [which] demanded continuous heroic effort.TM ~ What will characterize religious life in its revitalized form? A major insight comes from~Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi, 1975. He challenged the Church ib recognize that "what matters is to evangelize man's culture and cultures. in a vital wa, y and fight to'their very roots",(n. 20). If we take this challenge and relate it to the mission of religibus life in the United States (and elsewhere), 1 ,believe John Kavanaugh's statement is correct: "One powerful and often over-looked possibility is in the rediscovery of the religious life as countercultural force."42 This means that we must go 1sack and look closely at the symbols within our culture that urgently need challenging'with Gospel values. This challenging can be effectively done not in words alone but ultimately through a life-style that witnesses to values, attitudes, that are Gospel in origin. As wit-nesses they will be living symbols of what the Gospel really means. The spiritu-ality of future religious life will be, as Karl Rahner observes, "a spirituality of the Sermon on the Mount and of the evangelical counsels, continually involved ~ in renewing its protest against the idols of wealth, pleasure and power."43 To be more explicit, religious life in the United States will enter a new 1~91~ / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 spring, if religious themselves recognize that for the culture to be evangelized in depth "in a vital way and ,~r!ght to [its] very roots," they must themselves become - radically committed living witnesses to the Incarnation and Transcen-dence in orderto counter the symbols of secularism and selfishness. - living witnesses to vibrant community life, to counter the symbols of excessive individualism and alienation insociety~ . - living witnesses to a love of prayer, contemplation, to counter the sym-bols of chronic pragmatism and materialism; ~ - living witnesses through their life-style and attitudes to God's mercy, Jesus Christ, ifi concern for~ the alienated,0the oppressed--nationally and internationally; - living witnesses of respect for older people and their accumulated wis- ,. dora, to counter the symbol of excessive stress on the cult' of youth in a productivity-oriented culture; ¯ - living witnesses to the radical demands of asceticism in opposition to the symbols of consumerism, instant spirituality; - living witnesses, to the virtue of. hope, to cbunter ~symbols that seek to negate any redemptive and ~schatological power of suffering. American~mainstream ctilture is steeped in a rich mythology of mission to greatness, a mythology--once deeply Christian in its orientation--with sym-bols of journeying to build a society befitting the dignity of men and women. In recent decades, this mythology of journeying has been used opolitically, in ways never intended by the early dreamers, poets, prophets and builders of the nation. Religious, when they respond to the call to radicalness, effectively have the chance to draw from this mythology, purifying it of its subsequent aberra-tions. In the process they will touch the hearts of Americans.who are genuinely sehrching for how to journey to real greatness. The pope requeSted the review of religious life in the United States not only because religious life needs this critical reflection within the country, but also because of the influence American religious have had "on religious life +throughout the world.TM Anthropologists, who happen to be Catholic, and who work in ,various parts of the world come into contact with the influrnce of American-b~rn religious. Hence, they recognize the importance of the pope's singling out of American re!igious life. If the review has the effect of deepening commitment and reVital-ization in American religious congregations, this will have a flow effect throughout the world. The mythology of mission to greatness would then be international ir~ its implications It has been Said that the anthropologist's trade lies in unearthing what is hidden and articulating wha~ is latent. In this brief article, I have tried ,to illustrate through the use of anthropological techniques of analysis what has happened.to religious life in the post-Vatican II United States. Many of the insights have been spoken of before. But here /hey are:articulated within various anthropological frames or parameters in an effort to put them into a Why They Leave / 829 better context and :be more objectively understood. Many other disciplines will expertly highlight points not raised here. But, it is argued, the anthropologist's particular expertise is to be found in the interpretation of culture. Religious in America prior to Vatican II belonged ,to a :highly organized and structured subculture of American~life. The anthropologist has specialized insights into the position of religious within such a subculture, but he has also insights into what happened to religious~ life once this subculture broke down with such ~apidity and trau'ma. This paper attempts to offer some of thrse insights. A second aspect of the paper~related to the future of religious life in the United States. As evangelizers are called on to eVangelize culture in depth, the anthro-pologist is surely in a key position to unearth.hidden, but powerful, symbols that must be evangelized if Gospel values are to take root. Herice, the last part of the article is concerned with What religious life should symbolize if it is to become something not lived in some ~r~'refieda~mosphere, .but rather a power-fully radical vehicle through which the Gospel can take root within the hearts and ~minds of American people: Then the people will come to see conversion as a journeying "into a place 6i" promise anff hope"'(Preface of Thanksgiving). ¯ NOTES ~No. 63. 2The Interpretation of Cultures"(N.Y.: Basic; Books¯ 1973), p:89. ~Louis Dupre, The Other Dimension: A Search for the Meaning ofi Religious Attitudes (N.Y.: The Seabury Press, 1979), p. 105. 4J0hn iCogley, Catholic America (N.Y.: Image, 1974)¯ p. 135. .sCharles A. Fracchia, Second Spring: The Coming of Age of U.S. Catholicism (San Francisco: Harper & Ro,w, 1980), p. 83. ~Facing up to Modernity: Excursions in Society, Politics and Religion (Manchester: Penguin, 1979), p. 228. 7"Religion and Power in America Today" in Commonweal, 3 December 1982, p: 655. 8 The Sixties: The Art~ Attitudes, Politics and Media of Our Most Explosive Decade, ed. Gerald Howard (N.Y,: Washington Square Press, 1982), p.,4: 0See explanation by Bernice Martin. A Sociology of Contemporary Cultural Change (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981)¯ p. 1 and passim. ~Olbid. p. 112. '~See Ralph W. Larkin, Suburban Youth. in Cultural Crisis (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 171. ~2For a summary of his approach see Victor and Edith Turner, Image and Hlgrimage in Chris-tian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives (Oxford: Basil Bl~ckwell, 1978), pp. 243-255. ~See,Gerald A. Arbuckle, "Evangelization and Cultures: Complexities and Challenges" in The Australasian Catholic Record, Vol. LVI, 1979¯ pp. 254-257: ~4"Contra Blake" in Collected Poems, ed. E. Mendelson (London: Faber & Faber, 1976), p. 540. ~50p. cit., p. 17. ~rDemocracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, ed. P. Bradley (N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), II, p. 98. I!~!0 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 ~TRebuilding America Before the21st Century: An Immodest Agendd~(N.Y2~McGraw-Hill, 1983). , ~ ~SFreedom and Its Limitations in Americt~n;Life, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (~;tanford: Stanford University Press, 1976), pp. 22, 29. ~90p. cir., p. 652. ~°The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in An Age of Di~ninishing Expectatiohs (N.Y.: Warner Books, 1979), p. 354. 2~"American Catholic Spirituality" in New Catholic World, July/August, 1982, p. 154. 22See Richard Huntington and Peter Metcalf, Celebrations~of Death: The Anthropology of " Mortuary Ritual (N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 184-211. 2~See Marvin Harris, America Now: The Anthropology of a Changing Culture (N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1981) p. 28ff. 24 The Cultural Contradictions~ 8f Capitalism (N.Y.: Basic Books, !976), p. 122. 2~ Perfectae Caritatis, no. 3. 26 The Resilient Church: The Necessity and Limit~ of Adaptation, (N.Y.: DoubledaY, 1981), p., I i. 27Cited by Qeorge A. k.elly, The~Battlefor the American Church (N.~.: Doubleday, 1981), p. 8. ~s',Passages, Margins and Povert~,~',Religious. Symbols~and Co~nmunitas" in Worship, Vol. 46, 197Z. p. 390f. , . ~ ~ 29See Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (N:Y.:. Pantheot~ Books, 1970), passim. ~°The Tyranny of Surviva~l (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1973), p. 23. 3~ The Church and Cultures: An Applied Anthropology for the" Religious Worker (Techny: Divine Word, 1970), p. 97. 32The Chosen Peoples (Midd!egreen: St. Paul Publications, 1982), p. 273. 3~lntimacy: Essays in Pastoral Psychology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1969), pp. 79-105. ~For an introductory overview of such cults see Kenelm Burridge, New .Heaven New Earth (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969), passim. ~Cargo Cults in the South Pacific," in America, 3 S~ptember 1977, p. 96. 36The Imperial Presidency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), p. vii. ~70p. cit., p. I If. ~The Renewal of American Catholicism (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1972), p. 208f. 39See predictions by Raymond Fitz and lawrence Cada, ~The Recovery of Religious Life" in REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS, Vol. 34, 1975/5, p. 706. ~°lawrence Cada, Raymond Fitz; Gertrude Foley, Thomas Giardino and Carol Lichtenberg, Shaping the Coming Age of Religious L~fe (N.Y.: The Seabury Press, 1979), p. 38. 4~ L. Evenett, The Spirit of the Counter-Reformation (cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 4If. ~2 Following Christ in a Consumer Society: The Spirituality of Cultural Resistance (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982), p. 136. 43Concernfor the Church, trans. E. Quinn (N~Y.: Crossroads, 1981), p. 145. **Cited by Kenneth A. Briggs, ~Pope Orders Study'of Drop in ReligiOus Orders in U.S." in The New York 7~mes, 24 June 1983,.p. All. Sentire cum Ecclesia I"incent T. O'Keefe, S.J. Father O'Keefe has been General Assistant and General Counselor in the governance of the Society of Jesus with special charge for the fields of education and social communication; he has also been Director of the Office of Public Relations. . This artic~e ~rigina~y appeared in C~S~ the quarter~y pub~icati~n ~f the Centrum ~gnatianum Spiritualitatis, located in the order's genemlate in Rome. Re ders are familiar with that: element in the 'ch~rism of St. Ignatius which has become~known in a kind of'spiritual shorthand as sentire cum Ecclesia from the "Rtiles for Thinking with the Church" placed by St. Ignatius as an appendix ,at the end of his Spiritual Exercises. After a series of conferences in Rome by Jesuit specialists in May of" 1979, the Ignatian Center of Spirituality published them :in a:booklet.~ This provides an excellent treatment of the different aspec(s of sentire curn Ecclesia and a good bibliogr~aphy? The purpose of this paper is quite different. It is to consider this important part of Jesuit life and spirituality as presented by Pope John Paul II as one of his tirincipal concerns and desires and expectations with regard to the Society of Jesus today. It is'clear that we must 10ok to the past in orde~ tO understand the background of John Paul lI's presentation, but the main thrust is just as clearly in terms of the present and future apostolic work of the Society. Background: Recent History I. John Paul H to Jesuit Provincials: February 27, 1982 From February 23 to March 3, 1982 the Jesuit provincials from around the world met with Father Paolo Dezza, S.J., Delegate of the Holy Father, and Father Giuseppe Pittau, S.J., Coadjutor of~Father Dezza, in order to respond to the concerns, desires and expectations of the Holy Father. In his well-known address to the group on February 27, John Paul II spoke of these 831 1132 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 matters and laid specia! emphasis on sentire cum Ecclesia. His intention was to indicate how the Society coiald best serve the Church today, and how this was to be done in accord with the charism of St. Ignatius and with the tradition of the Society down through the four and a half centuries of its history. The words of the pope are at once a call, an appeal, and a challenge to the whole body of the Society to help the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic College to serve the People of God, and to do this by living to the full one of the centerpieces of Ignatian spirituality, sentire cum Ecclesia, by being of one mind and heart with the Church. In his address John Paul II refers to the meeting of the provincials which was then at the midway point: "In such a climate of serene ffelcoming of God's will, you are reflecting in meditation and prayer during these days on the best way to respond to the expectations of the pope and of the Pe#ople of God in a period of polarizations and contradictions which mark contemporary society. The object of your reflections, inspired by Ignatian "discernment," are the fundamental problems of the ide~ntity and of the ecclesial ~f.unction of the Society . " And the first such important element noted by the pope'is the sentire cum Ecclesia. The Holy Father situates his remarks within an historical context: ". :. it'is opportune to reflect on your order's past in order to grasp the fundamental marks of this process [the implementation of the Council of Trent] and the richest and most positive aspects of the way in which the Society contributed to it. They will be like guiding lights or beacons to indicate what the Society of today, impelled by the dynamism typical of its Founder's charism, but genuinely faithful to it, can and must do to foster what the Spirit of God has brought about in the Church through the Second Vatican Council. The Society of Jesus, ever imbued with the spiri~ of true renewal, will I~e ready .to play its, part ,fully today as in the past and always: to be able to help the pope and the Apostolic College to advance the whole Church along the great road marked out by the Council . " This help that John Paul II asks of thE'Society in the Ignatian spirit of sentire cum Ecclesia is to assist "in a notable way the Roman Pontiffs in the exercise of their supreme magisterium . The Roman Pontiff to whom you are linked by ~i special vow is, in the words of the Second Vatican Counc.il, 'the Supreme Pastor of the Church' (Christus Dominus, 5). As such he has a particular ministry of service to exercise for the good of the universal Church, and in which he willingly accepts your loving, devoted and time, tested collaboration." John Paul II calls on the Soc!ety to aid him in his service to the whole Church, in helping the People of God to understand and implement the Second Vatican Council,, and to do this particularly bY traditional Jesuit loyalty to the magisterium in doctrine and practice. There are reminders to avoid defects of the past, but this is in order to render the Society's service to the pope and to the Church as effective as possible. Sentire cum Ecclesia 2. In Continuity with Paul VI In issuing this call, the Holy Father indicates clearly that he is following his predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul I: As m~, venerated predecessor, Pope Paul VI, already told you, the Church today wants the Society to implement effectively the Second Vatican Council, as, in the time of St. Ignatius and afterwards, it spared no effort to make known and apply the Council of Trent, assisting in a notable waythe Roman Pontiffs in the exercise of their supreme magisterium . Together with solidity of virtue, your Constitutions insist on a solidity and sourdfiess of doctrine, su~:h as is essential for an efficacious apostolate. Conse-quently, "The Jesuits were universally considered to be a support for the doctrine and discipline of the whole Church. Bishops, priests and lay people used to look upon the Society as an authentic nourishment for the interior life" (Letter of Cardinal Villot to Father General, 2 July 1973). The same should remain true in the future by means, of that loyal fidelity to the magisterium of the Church, and in particular of the Roman Pontiff, to which you are in duty bound. After the letter mentioned above by John Paul 1I, which Cardinal Villot had sentln the name of Paul VI, the latter pope wrote to Father Grneral on September 15, 1973 with regard to General Congregation XXXII which had just been cbnvoked for Decembei" 1974. Paul VI referred in a very special manner to "the fidelity ~o the Holy See, whether in the area of stodies and education of young scholastics, who are the hope of your order, oor of the students attending the great number of schools and universities entrusted to the Society, or in the production and pu~blication of writing,,s aimed at a wide circle of readers, or in the exercise of tl'ie direct'apostolate. 3 A year later on Deceml~er 3, 1974, Paul Vi addressed the members of i3eneral Congregation XXXII and continued.along the line of thought of his letter of September 15, 1973. He specified the works of the Society where the spirit of sentire cum Ecclesia has been evident: ¯. we see displayed all the wonderful richness and adaptability which has characterized the Society during the centuries as.~the Society of those "sent~ by the Church. Hence tl~re have come theological research and teaching, h,ence the apostolate of preaching, of spiritual assistance, of publications and writings, of the direction of groups, and of formation by means of the Word of God and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in accordance with the special and characteristic duty, committed to you by your holy Founder. Hence there have come the social apostolate and intellectual and cultural activity which extend from schools for the solid and complete education of youth all the wa~, to the levels of advanced university studies and ~cholarly research . Then in a s~ries of questions which Paul VI says that Jesuits themselves are asking "as a conscientious verification and as a reassuring confirmation," the Holy Father asks: "What is the state of Catholic faith and moral teaching as set forth by the ecclesiastical magisterium?TM Paul VI spoke in a similar way in his letter of February I5, 1975 to Father General,5 and, in an audience granted to him during General Congregation XXXII on February 20, 1975, the Holy Father expressed his fear lest the ¯ General Congregation "give insufficient care to correcting certain lamentable deviations in doctrinal and disciplinary matters which had in recent years often ~834 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 been manifested with respect to the mag]sterium and hierarchy.TM On March 7, 1975, the last.day of the Congregation, Paul VI received Father General and the General Assistants. In a brief address the Holy Father noted: We were not a little pleased by the fact that the members of the General Congregation favorably understood the force and meaning of our recommendations and showed that the~, received them with a willingnes~s to carry them out . We exhort all the companions" of Ignatius to continue with renewed zeal to carry out all the works and ~ endeavors upon which they have so eagerly embarked in the service of the' Church . You should be aware of the fact that not only the eyes of c.ontemporary men in general but also and especially those of so many members of other religious orders and congre-gations and even those of the universal Church are turned upon you . 7 General Congregation XXXII replied to the concerns and expectations of Paul VI particularly in its first and third decrees. In the first .decree, the "Introductory Decree," the Society humbly acknowledged the failings pointed out by the Holy Fatlier, and sought, with God's grhce, a more radical renewal and closer unity with the Holy Father.8 Even more specifically, the third decree treated "Fidelity of the Society to the Magisterium and the Supreme Pontiff." It stressed the Society's obligati6n of reverence and loyalty, and its responsibil-ity towards the Church. While reaffirming the Society's long tradition of service fO the Church in the explanation, propagation and defense of the faith, it deplo'red the shortcomings in this matter in recent years, and recommended to Society superiors a fatherly but firm vigilance so that cases might be avoided or corrected which tarnish the Socieiy',s fidelity to the magisterium and to the service of the faith and of the Church.9 " The reaction of Paul VI was expressed in a letter of Cardinal Villot-to Father General on May 2, 1975: "It is mos( opportune that the GenEral Congregation has confirmed the traditional fidelity of the Society to the magis-terium and the Holy Father: HoweVer, the expression [in the text of decree 3], 'Freedom Should be intelligently encouraged,' should not be allowed to pro-vide gro~nds for disregarding thb rules for 'Thinking with the Church,' which are proper to the Society."~0 3. The Address Prepared by John Paul 1 During"his all too brief pontificate, Pope John Paul I had pre.pared an address which he intended~to give to (he members of the Society's Con-gregation of Procurators on September.30, 1978. When the Holy Father's sudden death prevented him from giving the address, Father'General appealed to the Vatican Secretariate of State for a copy of it. This was accomplished through the good offices of Cardinal Villot who menti6ned in his accompany-ing letter that John Paul 11 subscribed to and made his own~what John Paul I had written.~ 1 In his address, John Paul I proposed some points for the consideration of thememb~rs of the Congregation of Procurators. Not only does senti~'e cure E~clesia have a central part here, but John Paul I provides a clear and full Sentire cum Ecclesia : report of what activities and what attitudes it refers to: In your apostolic labors you should always keep in view the proper end of'the Society "founded chiefly ,for the defense and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine" (Formula of the Institute) . For this evangelizing action, St. Ignatius demands of his sons a solid doctrine acquired through a prolonged and careful preparation. It has been a characteristic of the Society to be careful to present in preaching and spiritual direciion, teaching ~nd publication of books and reviews, a solid and sound doctrine, fully conformed to the teaching of the Church; because of this the monogram of:the Society was for the Christian people a guarantee [of solid doctrine] and won for you the special trust of the episcopate. Strive to maintain intact this praiseworthy characteristic; let it not happen that the teachings and p~blica-tio~ is of Jesuits contain anything to cause confusion and disorientation among the faithful; ever keep in mind that the mission entrusted to you by the Vicar of Christ is to announce--in a way adapted to the mentality of today, certainly, but in its integrity and .purity--the Christian message contained in th, e deposit of revelation, of which the authentic interpreter is the magisterium of the Church. This na!urally implies that in the institutes and faculties where young Jeslzits are formed,'sure and solid doctrine is taught in conformity with the directives ~:ontained in the conciliar decrees and in the successive documents of the Holy See concerning:'~t.he, doctrinal formation of those aspiring for priesthood~ And this is all the more necessary since your institutes are open to numer-ous seminarists, religious, and lay persons wh6 frequent them precisely for the sure and~' solid doctrine that they expect to receive there . Be therefore faithful to the wise norms contained in your Institute: and be at the same time faithful to the prescriptions of the Church concerning religious life, priestly ministry, liturgical celebrations, giving an example of that loving docility to "our Holy Mother the hierarchical Church"---as St. Ignatius recalls in the "Ruleg for Thinking witff the Church"--because she is the "true spouse of Christ our Lord" (see Spiritual Exercises, n. 353). This attitude of St. Ignatius towards the Church should be typical also of his sons.~2 " 4. John Paul H to Presidents of Jesuit Conferences (September 1979) and Father" General's Follow-up A year later, John Paul II addressed Father General and the Presidents of, the Conferences of Provincials on September 21,197,9. The Holy Father noted that he did not have e~nough time to consider sufficiently either the good initiatives t6 be developed or the deficiencies to be remedied, and stated: I shall limit myself to recalling some recommendations offered from the heart by my immediate predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul I, out of the great love they bore.th'e Society. Their recommendations 1 make completely my own . Be faithful to the'rules of your Institute, as requested b.y Paul Vi and mpre recently byoJohn Paul I in the allocution prepared for your Congregation of Procurators shortly before his death. They both stressed . sound doctrine in complete fidelity to the supreme magisterium of the Church and the Roman Pontiff so fervently desired by St. Ignatius, as everyone knows . In addition to the great good accomplished by many Jesuits through the example of their lives, their apostolic zeal, and unconditioned fidelity to the Roman Pontiff, John Paul I1 noted "that the crisis which in recent times has troubled religious life and is still troubling it, has not spared your Society, causing confusion among the Christian people and concern tO the Church, to 8~16 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 the hierarchy and also personally to the Pope who is speaking with you."~3 The Presidents of the Conferences of Provincials had been meeting in Rome for their fourth Consultation with Father General (September 17-21), and the theme of their meeting was° the Society,'s service to the Church. The basis of discussion was a series of recent documents including.the "Directives for the Mutual Relations between Bishops and Religious in the Church" {a joint document of the Congregation for Religious and the Congregation for Bishops), and, with special attention, the address of John Paul 1 referred to above. ~4 On October 19: 1979. Father General wrote to all major superiors.of the Society witliregard"to the address of John' Paul It on Septe, mber 21, 197'9", and stated that it "calls for a profound and serious reflection by us as superiors who hold the chief responsibility for the government of the Society.''15 With regard to the shortcomings mentioned by the Pope. Father General notes that: they" are practically the same deficiencies widish had already been pointed out to us by Paul VI and John Paul 1. and which we have (ecognized sincerely and have been trying to correct. But without doubt, we have not coped with the problem to th~ degree and with the effectiveness expected of us. This s~tuation focuses the desirers of the Holy Father on a matter that pertains mainly to us who bear responsibility for the govern-ment of the Society and to our way of governing. Accordingly. now is the momen! to ask ourselves seriously how we can bring a greater effectiveness to lhe government of the Society and to the execution of whal the last General Congregations have laid down with regard to the very points mentioned~ by the Holy Father)6 Practical steps were then decreed by Father General. "You, the Major Superiors with your consultors, in special n~eetings for this purpose, should examine the state of the province, of its ~embers, communities and works in the light of the points already mentioned, and should take any decisions needled in order to meet the expectations of the Holy Father . At the conclu- ~sion bf these c6nsultations, 1 want you to write to me individually at the b~gin-ning of 1980, dealing with these items that have been the subject of special discussion and of the decisions taken on them . Your counsultors also in their official annual letters should deal specifically with this material . Similar measures were set down for local superiors, their co~nsultors and communities, and for directors of apostolic works. Each local superior was to ensure "that each member of the community examines himself about his personal attit6des, words and actions in the light of the desires expressed by the Holy Father. We'must ~iot ~llow ourselves to interpret his words in such a qualified way as would fail to make us look into ourselves and bring about the changers he wants. No one can evade his own personal responsibility with the pretext that his allocution is~'for su~pefiors.'''1~ 5. The Societ~y's Prepration for a Future GC(" Father Dezza's Letter (March 25, 1982) In the correspondence and discussions with Fat~her General that began in 1980 with regard to a future General Congregation, John Paul It stressed the Sentire cum Ecclesia need for a deeper preparation of the Society for this General Congregation. After the tragic attempt on the Pope's life and after the stroke suffered by Father Arrupe, the Holy Father continued these discussions with Father l)ezza, his personal Delegate for the Society. It was in the light of this histori-cal background that John Paul I1 addressed the provincials on February 27, 1982, and spoke of fidelity to the magisterium of the Church as the focal point of the ecclesial function of the Society. In this address he has the time and the occasion for setting forth the initiatives to be developed to meet the needs of the Church and the world, something he:did not have enough time to accom-plish in his address of September 21, 1979. This same background also helps to understand why Father Dezza took up sentire cure Ecclesia as the first major point to be discussed with the provincials during their meeting from February 23 to March 3, 1982. After the meeting~ he wrote to the whole Society on March 25, 1982 in order to share with all Jesuits as he had done Witfi the provincials the concerns,~desires and expectations 6f the Holy Father. In treating sentire cum Ecclesia, there is a concentration in the letter on fidelity to the magisterium in doctrine and practice. After recalling the previous statements of John Paul 11 and his pi~ede-cessors, Paul VI and John Paul 1, which have been noted above, and after pertinent references to the Constitutions and to General Congregations, Father Dezza sets out some normS for the fidelity of Jbsuits, first to the magisterium, and then to the laws of the Church. With regard to the magisteriUm, when it is question of the infallible magis-terium, the necessity of assent on the part of all Catholics is clear. The way in which the truth is presented may Vary according to different times and cul-tures, but the truth itself may not be altered. In the words of Vatican I1: "Furthermore, theologians are now being asked, within the methods a.nd limits ~ofthe science of theology, to seek out more efficient ways--providing the meaning and understanding of them is safeguarded--of presenting their teach-ing to modern man: for the d~posit and~the truths of faith are one thing, the manner of expressing them is quite another.''19 ' When it is question of the a~uthentic but non-infallible magisterium, Vati-can II once again sets out theguiding principles: B~i~shops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected bY all i~s witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex Cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in thi: matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.~° From this Father Dezza enunciates the operative principle: "Therefore when there is question of a doctrine clearly and repeatedly taught in solemn I1~111 / Review for Religious; Nov.-Dec., 1983 documents such as encyclicals, it is the, duty of ministers of the Church, in teaching and preaching, to communicate the doctrine authentically taught to the faithful and help them to live it, with trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to the Church and to its visible head, the Roman Pontiff, in his universal ministry of guiding men to eternal salvation." When it is question of the teaching given in our Centers of Studies, it should, says the letter,. be in conformity with the magisterium (see Sapibntia Christiana, Introd., III and Art. 39 and 70) so that our scholastics may acquire, especially in the basic institutional courses, a clear, solid and organic understanding of Catholic teaching. They should be ~taught conscientiously to distinguish in the different doctrines taught betwe.en affirma-tions "that must be held, those, which are left to free discussion and those which cannot be accepted. In the matter of public~ations, the norm isstied by Father General on February 16, 1~76, in his "Ordinatio" on publisfiing works must not be forgot-ten: "that it is fully conformed t0~teaching on faith and morals, as it is pro- ~posed by the ecclesiastical magisterium,~.taking account of the freedom of investigation in relation 30 writings or reviews whose matter, by ~ts very nature, is destined only for experts.TM In addition =to fidelity in doctrine, Father Dezza notes that Jesuits are obliged to fidelity to the Church in matters of discipline and specifically~ the liturgical norms. Once again, the principle is set down in Vatican II: "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church [the Holy See, Bishops' Conferences, the Bishops]. Therefore absolutely no other persons, not even a .priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."22 It may be said, therefore, in summary fashion that the main concern and expectation of the Holy Father in this matter is that the Society, in its teaching and preaching, its counseling and writings, and its actions .show and guarantee sureness of doctrine and fidelity to the magisterium. John Paul 1I, like his predecessors, Paul Vl and John Paul I, emphasizes the influence exerted by the Society on the whole Church, and stresses the increased sense of responsi-bility this calls for'on the part of~all Jesuits. There are attitudes and actions to avoid, but in a positive sen~,se there is a call to the Society, and there is the expectation that it will exert its best efforts in helping the Holy Father and the Apostolic Coll.ege to se~:ve the whole Church. Reflections in the Light of Ignatian Spirituality 1. ~he~ Thrust of the lgnatian Sefitire cum Ecclesia It is clear that what the Holy Father is asking of the Society requires no new laws or rules or extraordinary procedures. As Father Dezza indicates in his letter,~it is in accord with our Institute and tradition, and the reminders addressed to the Society by the pope are to be understood in the context of the Sentire cum Ecclesia whole of the Society's Institute, spirituality and mission. These latter points are not developed at any length in the letter since its finality followed that of the meeting of the provincials: to expla.in the concerns and desires and expecta-tions of John Paul II. At the very heart and center of the charism of St. Ignatius are the words of °the Formula of the Institute: "To serve the Lord alone and the Church, his spouse, under the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of Christ on earth . "Thus the life and activity of the Society is centered in service to the Church. As a priestly order committed to the defense and propagation of the faith under obedience to the Holy Father, the Society not only shares in the ministry of.the Church, but also has a special responsibility for servi~:e to the Church in her apostolic task of preserving and confirming the communion of faith in the Church. This fiaeans, that, individually and corporately, Jesuits are to develop within them-selves and communicate to those they serve attitudes which will strengthen, unify and energize the Church in its function as an instrument of the kingdom of God~in the world. They should also eliminate attitudes and actions which can weaken, fragment and paralyze the Church.23 These were the concerns of St. Ignatius when he wrote the "Rules for Thinking with the Church." As we: know, these "Rules~' are placed as an appendix at the end of the SpiritualExercises, which helps us to situate them in their proper context. They are not meant for anyone at all. They are intended for those who have been formed and nurtured by the Exercises, who are moved by a strong, personal love for Christ, and are dedicated to the est~iblishment of his ~kingdo~ in r.e, sponse to his call.24 The origin of the Society is'to be found in the ~experienre. of St. Ignatius and his companions of the Spiritual.Exercises. St. Ignatius "founded the Society as an organization which would continually, renew itself in the Church through the inner vigor of the Exercises and under the vitalizing impulse of the Spirit."25 "The Spiritual .Exercises, in which as Jesuits we especially experience Christ~and respr'nd to his call, lie at the heart of our Je~su!t vocation."26 In this context, it is easier to understand the first of ¯ the "Rules," which is a fundamental principle: "We ought to keep our minds disposed and ready, with all judgment of our own put aside, to be obedient in everything to the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our Holy Mother the hierarchical Church.":7 The "~Rules" cannot be truly understood or applied except in the framework of, the Spiritual Exercises, For St. Ignatius, sentire cum Ecclesia applies to Jesuits who live the spirit of the Spiritual Exercises. Without, a lived relationship to the living Christ, the right combination of fidelity and renewal implied in sentire cum Ecclesia can scarcely~be achieved. It is clear that ,the Church for St. Ignatius is not the glorified Church, nor some abstract and idealized one that never existed. It is the Church in the concrete, with its deficiencies and weaknesses, the hierarchical, pilgrim Church which stands "ever in need of purification.''28 The best way to achieve this purification is not by ppblic criticism and controversy: A truly filial love of the Church will suggest the most suitable ways. Father Dezza's letter recalls the 1~40 / Review for Religious, Nov.-Dec., 1983 telling point made by Father Arrupe: "A model of this way of acting was St. Ignatiu~ himself. Few have toiled with such effectiveness for Catholic reform 'in head and members'; and yet one would seek in vain in his voluminous. correspondence for a word of criticism of his superiors."29 St. Ignatius did not assume the role of judge or accuser, but looked rather to an internal renewal in his conviction that the Church had within herself the means and capacity to'- renew herself.3° .,. Sentire cum Ecclesia is not to be identified with something that is occa-sional, something called into play on the occasion of a,Church teaching, pronouncement or declaration.~.lt~ is rather an interior disposition and attitude of love of the Church, an habitual outlook, a framework of reference, which inspires a way of thinking; feeling and acting. The objective of sentire cum Ecclesia goes beyond a careful attention to orthodoxy and looks to union and unity in faith and communign. It is to oppose disintegrating forces in the Church and reinforce trends that build community. Only the person who looks on the Church with love as his Mother and the' Spouse of Christ can grasp and interiorize the spirit of sentire cure Ecclesia. It involves a faith attitude, and as already noted, has its roots in a personal relationship with Christ which has grown during the Spiritual Exercises. Our attitude towards the Church follow~ from our attitude toward the person of Jesus Christ. In his letter Father Dezza states: "It is therefore important to promote ever more in Ours that attitude towards the magisterium that is characteristic of~a Jesuit who, moved by the spirit of faith, is therefore favorable and sympathetic, and is led to consider the offici~,l documents of the magisterium fully and objecti,~ely
