ANTONIO GASCÓN: INTERLOCUTOR WITH JOSÉ RAMÓN GARCÍA-MURGA, MIXED COMPOSITION, CHARISM IN ACTION.

Transcription

1 ANTONIO GASCÓN: INTERLOCUTOR WITH JOSÉ RAMÓN GARCÍA-MURGA, MIXED COMPOSITION, CHARISM IN ACTION. Antonio Gascón, sm 29 September 2010 Rome [1] I wish to respond to the presentation by Fr. José Ramón García-Murga about the subject of Composición mixta, carisma en acción. [2] Fr. JR hopes to respond to two current dangers that threaten our Mixed Composition: on the one hand, the increase of Marianist priests, which would lead us to clericalism in the Society of Mary. On the other hand, a tendency to secularism, which would deform our missionary activity in the secular realm where we were born two centuries ago. [3] In order to respond to these two dangers, Fr. JR articulates his work in two moments: a historical one, where he presents our Mixed Composition throughout time, as an expression of the original charism of the Society of Mary and its vital and doctrinal configuration throughout our canonical texts, declarations and Marianist life. He ends this first part of his reflection with an assessment of the clarity of the original charism and about the crisis of the XIX century and the cohesions of the classes among themselves. [4] The second part of the presentation --in my opinion more specifically theological and therefore, more interesting-- focuses on our situation today ; or if you wish, an excellent reflection about the nature or identity of priests, lay people and vowed religious in the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II. [5] From this theological reflection, Father JR makes a series of applications of our Mixed Composition about: vocation ministry, Marianist formation, pastoral action, and professional activities, community life, the mission and the government of the Society. He concludes by revalidating the basic declaration: that our Mixed Composition in reality is only the grace of being Church of this world and of God, of laity and shepherds, lived out in incomparable closeness, thanks to a brilliant inspiration: that of our Founder, Blessed Chaminade of happy memory. [6] In the first section of his presentation Mixed Composition throughout the history of the Society of Mary the author supports the thesis that this characteristic trait of Marianist spirituality expresses the universality and the secularity of our charism. By universality, he understands that the SM welcomed people of all social, cultural and ecclesial conditions. And that secularity defines the lay personality of the new religious Institute. [7] Let us go to universality. In the new religious Institute created by Chaminade the priest, Lalanne the seminarian and the companions from the Marian Sodality of Bordeaux, there were clerics and laymen, learned men and manual laborers. All of them with the same simple vows. In this sense, the Mixed Composition of the Society of Mary, even as a novelty among the institutes created in the XIX century, gathers what was commonly essential to all of them: 3-3b (en) Garcia-Murga-Phillips Response AGascon-eng.doc 1

2 1. It presents the definite will to consecrate themselves to God as true religious, but with simple vows which in the canonical tradition of the Church were not true religious vows, as were solemn vows--. The new liberal State did not recognize solemn vows, and consequently, the Church did not grant them. Through simple vows, the brothers of the new Institutes professed the same religious rights and duties, whether brothers or priests. 2. Mixed Composition expresses the evangelical experience of fraternity, which is the origin of the institutes of the XIX century. All its members are brothers and therefore, they profess the same simple vows. [8] Regarding secularity, our Mixed Composition expresses another trait that is common to the new congregations born in the XIX century, which form the congregational [ associational ] movement. These congregations are born with the mission of re-christianizing the society that emerged from the political, economical and cultural liberal-bourgeois revolution. Re- Christianization will take place through secular institutions, such as a school or a hospital, within which the new religious diversify their professional tasks toward the common socialapostolic work. We must observe that the new religious hope to evangelize through a secular activity; that is, they evangelized through the moral and social progress of the population. [9] The complicated historical process of our Mixed Composition is due to the lack of canonical clarity regarding the value of simple vows professed by the new religious. We must keep in mind that neither Napoleon s Concordat nor the Civil Code recognized the existence of religious life in France, because the revolutionaries had suppressed solemn vows as contrary to human nature (In the new liberal State, citizens could not alienate their rights of property, their freedom of choice and of changing their state). The new members can only profess simple vows, which were not authentic religious vows. For this reason, the new institutes were not true religious orders. But the founders and foundresses want their Institutes to be recognized by the Holy See as authentic religious life, like the old monastic orders, and they wanted solemn vows to be granted to them. Since Rome will not grant them, they then ask for perpetual vows at least. And to ensure them, they add the vow of stability in the Institute. [10] In short, the founders and foundresses of the XIX century created a new form of religious life, without being very conscious of it. They were not religious orders, but rather congregations or institutes with simple vows. They could not have Rules, but they could have Constitutions or regulations. In its own sense, the new members with simple vows cannot be called religious (because they are neither canonically nor civilly religious). They call themselves brothers, associates or take the title of mister. Neither do they wear long robes or monastic attire, but rather a modest bourgeois outfit. Since they are not true religious, they do not have true novitiates (but schools to teach the candidates to pray and to become teachers; for this reason the master of novices could be a brother). They cannot have seminaries either, but their priests study in diocesan seminaries and are ordained by diocesan bishops to whom they remain bound in regard to the priestly mensa comunis; although, regarding religious matters, they are obligated to their religious superiors and to the common life, but with the exceptions proper to the clerical state (office of readings, chapter of faults ). The good brother and the good sister wear a modest secular outfit, and they work in a rural or municipal school or in a hospital, living in a small home, with no cloister. Their dedication to work takes place in a secular milieu b (en) Garcia-Murga-Phillips Response AGascon-eng.doc

3 [11] But, since the Sodalists evangelize through a secular entity (e.g. a school), they need a civil legal personality to exercise this public activity. Thus, the Society of Mary had to request legal approval of its civil Statutes, in order to receive the directorship of the municipal schools; this was granted by Royal Decree on 16 November The Royal Decree recognized the Society of Mary by its dedication to primary school teaching; but it also recognized the Society as being made up of laymen and clerics. The first acknowledgement of Mixed Composition was on the part of the civil authorities. The civil Statutes were the only legal document of the Society, and the new associates used it in the ceremony to profess their vows. This is why a lay brother could be both the director of a school and of the community of brothers tending the school; but also a brother who was a priest. That is, the Brothers of Mary had full freedom to organize themselves internally, regarding religious and professional matters, save the duties proper to the priesthood. [12] However, this situation changed, after the canonical approval of the Society of Mary on 11 August 1865, as a true religious institute, according to the common tradition and right of the religious in the Church. The three types [classes] of novitiates were united and a priest was put in charge. But the Constitutions were not yet approved, and so neither was Mixed Composition. [13] The General Chapter of 1858 ordered the correction of the text of the Constitutions for their canonical approval. The Chapter after that, in 1865, appointed a writing committee. When the Constitutions were presented in the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Ordinaries, they received 40 animadversions. Then, a second session of the General Chapter was convened on September The Constitutions of 1867 resulted from that. This was followed by the canonical visit of Bishop Mathieu, of Besançon, between March and October At the end of that visit, in November of that year, an extraordinary General Chapter was convened. A commission was named to write Article 338, regarding the three classes of persons in the Society of Mary. The work was completed by Fr. Simler, General Assistant of Education. The new Constitutions were approved by Decree of the S.C. of Bishops and Ordinaries, on 30 January The Holy See gave definitive approval for Mixed Composition in the Society of Mary. A letter of Cardinal Quaglia explained that the Society of Mary had to remain as a mixed body of lay brothers and of brothers who were priests; and that the positions reserved to the priests should be those of Superior General, Heads of Zeal and of Education, Provincials, Novice Masters and Directors in the houses of higher classical learning (since they were considered as Seminaries). With this decree, approval was given for the charismatic inspiration of Mixed Composition, the unity of the Society, and the diversity of persons, tasks, positions and ministries. [14] This process continued and reached its fullness with the canonical approval of the Constitutions in Although the problem of Mixed Composition was resolved, some religious continued to be suspicious. All the problems were resolved thanks to a regulation given by the Congregation of Bishops and Ordinaries, to recognize the members as true religious and, consequently, the canonical right gave the statute of religious life to the new institutes. 3-3b (en) Garcia-Murga-Phillips Response AGascon-eng.doc 3

4 [15] The pontifical approval of the Constitutions should not be understood as a dialectic process between opposing mentalities, persons in confrontation or historical stages of an institution, in regard to: - Charism-institution - Liberals (or new religious concept of the congregational movement) against conservatives (monastic concept of religious life) - Personal confrontations: Lalanne-Caillet, Simler-Lehmann/Perrodin, etc. [16] On the contrary, the canonical configuration of the charism in the constitutions and the resulting internal organization of the new Institutes was a continual process, which was forged in dependence to the development of Canon Law to recognize the new institutes of simple vows as authentic religious life. There was no malice on the part of the people, but lack of doctrinal and canonical definition until Finally, the Pontifical approval of the Constitutions came by a Decree of 24 July 17891, of the S.C. of Bishops and Ordinaries. [17] The same thing happened with the institutional separation between the Society of Mary and the Daughters of Mary, during the times of Fr. Caillet. Chaminade understood that he was founding a united religious body, the Institute of Mary. There were 20 other mixed congregations like this foundation (women s branch and men s branch) in France; but each one underwent a rapid, autonomous development. Reality demonstrated that the administrative union of both branches was an utopist hope that was never able to be fully accomplished, given the many economic and governmental difficulties involved in a union. For this reason, neither the bishops, nor the prefects in the departments, or the Congregation of Bishops and Ordinaries encouraged this and they did not create a canonical doctrine for its reception. [18] In summary, the Mixed Composition of Marianist religious is a charismatic inspiration, proper to the Society, which manifests: 1. A real willingness of consecration to God with simple vows on the part of the new religious or the congregational [associational] movement, no matter their social origin or ecclesial state of their members. 2. The experience of evangelical fraternity, which in the new Congregations gives all the members equal rights and obligations, save those proper to the priesthood. Basically there is no new sense of liberal democracy, rather, of evangelical experience of fraternity. 3. The diversity of persons is at the service of unity of mission, each one with different tasks and abilities. In this sense, the division of classes of persons reflects the structure of the new liberal society where we were born. 4. The evangelizing mission is carried out through an institution of a secular nature (school, hospital, orphanage), with the willingness to join evangelization to social promotion. The fact that the sociological majority of the Marianist religious is lay, ensures our insertion in the secular realm. 5. Education in the schools is and has been our best insertion in the secular world, as a place of activity and evangelization in Modern times. It would be a problem if the majority of the Marianist social body was displaced to clerical institutions (parishes and shrines) or secular ones (ONGs of voluntary organizations). This would present difficulties for the fruitfulness of the Society of Mary in vocations ministry, pastoral activity, community and government b (en) Garcia-Murga-Phillips Response AGascon-eng.doc

5 [19] The second part of the work of Jose Ramón is richest because of its doctrinal depth. It states that the reflection must be focused on identities (what is in the Church), of priests, laymen and religious, rather than on their functions (what they can do in the Church). [20] Vatican Council II presents the Church as a Priestly People, where we find the ministerial priesthood of Bishops and priests, which configure and govern this priestly people. Therefore, it is not only the priests who carry out worship or sacramental activity (as in the Old Testament), but rather through the position of shepherds they do communion, organize the community, through sacramental service of the word and the witness of their own life. The lay people animate the temporal order with the Christian spirit; they direct what is secular toward the fullness of the Kingdom of God. The religious do it through the evangelical counsels and the Constitutions of their own Institutes and the charism of their founders, which is sacred. Their mission in the Institute, whatever it may be (ministry or professional activity), consecrates the world to God. MY PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW [21] We must place ourselves in the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II, collected in the Rule of Life of 1983; and not go back to the three classes of people in Simler s Constitutions where Mixed Composition reflects this functional concept of diversity of tasks for the good of the common work. [22] The Rule of 83 expresses the ecclesiology of the Council in Articles 12, 13 and 69. There, it says that the Marianist vocation is one single vocation; of religious with the same rights and duties in a variety of gifts and complementary ministries. The religious brothers, especially in the field of science, culture and technical and manual work; the priests offering their ministry. Thus, we reflect the Church. In the Council, the Church is the People of God, made up of laity and priests. Within the common priesthood of all the faithful, there is ordained priesthood. The lay faithful and the ordained ministers have different but complementary identity and mission. With his work, a lay person directs what is secular toward the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. A priest inserts what is secular into the paschal dynamics of Christ, through sacrament. [23] I agree with Father José Ramón. Neither one of these missions is functional; rather, they correspond to identities proper to the Church. 3-3b (en) Garcia-Murga-Phillips Response AGascon-eng.doc 5