|
Religious
Life That
was then ... What now?
When the Second Vatican Council called for renewal, no one took
the call as seriously as religious sisters. Around the world, they gathered in
big and small groups to look back at their roots. They examined their own lives
against the background of the charisms of their foundresses and the histories
that had shaped their congregations. More clearly than other groups the nuns
saw a church in transition. What they saw in turn precipitated further changes.
Many left and returned to lay life. Many who stayed were dispirited by the slow
movement of church reform.
Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister's 1995 book, The Fire in
These Ashes: A Spirituality of Contemporary Religious Life (Sheed &
Ward, 178 pages, $14.95), started a new flame burning, energized and stirred
new hope in religious life, whatever it may turn out to be. The following
excerpt, published with permission, is typical of the book's mixture of realism
and optimism.
By JOAN CHITTISTER
The keeping of the coals
For the last 30 or more years, ever since the very advent of
Vatican II, the lifestyle of religious congregations and their role in society
have been analyzed to the point of paralysis. For the religious involved, this
chancy, exciting, wearying, ambiguous period has become the greatest asceticism
of all, harder than hairshirts, more demanding than conformity, more difficult
than rituals and disciplines.
"Time," Tennessee Williams' character Tom comments in "The Glass
Menagerie," "is the longest distance between two places." For religious who
thought that the renewal of religious life would be a task, not a lifestyle,
that has without doubt become a hard truth. It has been years of change,
decades of adjustment, whole lifetimes of uncertainty, ambiguity, conflict and
confusions.
For those coming to religious life now, the task is to rebuild
religious life for decades to come out of the flimsiest of traditions perhaps,
but for the generation that came to religious life before or during Vatican II,
the task was to dismantle a system heavy with the accretions of the ages.
Suddenly, after years of cloistered routine and immutable custom,
religious life became a kind of social experiment, an exercise in
organizational tinkering and social insertion. The renewal of religious life
took on all the character of an archaeological dig. Layer after layer of its
theology, its history, its institutional forms, its organizational impulses,
its psychological effects were laid bare one after another in order to expose
for general view its workings, its impulses, its social, emotional, and
personal ramifications.
Every element, every assumption, every custom, every jot and
tittle of the rule, no matter how long-standing and sacrosanct, became
refreshingly suspect, tiringly suspect. Here was a social scouring of immense
proportions, one of the most total in social history, perhaps.
While anthropologists who claimed professional interest in
subcultures sat, for the most part, idly by, an entire way of life turned on
its axis a full 360 degrees. Cataclysmic in proportion, but almost invisible in
its long-term effects, change became the norm for groups that had changed
almost not at all, some of them, for hundreds of years. The academic exercise
of renewal took on a life of its own. It became for many, in fact, the raison
d'etre of community life itself. The purpose of religious life became to renew
religious life.
And all the while that happened institutionally, individual
religious became more and more alienated from the life itself. Renewal simply
did not stem the outgoing tide of membership. Many left to marry or to devote
themselves to professions where the service continued unabated and the stress
of life in cultural transition did not pervade. Few entered. Those who stayed
found themselves staying for far different reasons and greatly different goals,
many of them blurred at best, from the ones that had brought them to religious
life in the first place.
Now the question became whether or not anything at all would
remain of a lifestyle once generally considered permanently unchangeable,
commonly considered superior. Worse, the real concern became whether or not
there was any compelling reason for religious life to exist at all.
What could a religious do, for instance, that any layperson could
not now do as well? What was the purpose of celibacy, the virtue of poverty,
the value of an obedience that could be as psychologically deleterious as it
was organizationally efficient? Why would a person live in groups of strangers
with little but faith for comfort, even given all the changes for the better
where human values -- personal development and social quality -- were
concerned? If it was not a "higher" vocation, a guaranteed passage to eternal
life, a place of social privilege and public respect, a measure of goodness and
a moment of innocence crystallized, why do it? In fact, do what?
Past and future became the time warps of religious life. What had
brought it to this point and where it was going consumed the organizational
agenda of group after group. The present took on the character of a crucible
between what had been and what was coming.
At the same time, for individuals in every community, for those
for whom the organizational agenda took on the flesh and blood of everyday
life, the present ceased to have much of a character, a value, a respectable
quality of its own. What had been and what would be, not what was actually
going on in each of us spiritually, through us spiritually, consumed us
all.
Yet, all the time, dailiness felt more and more sterile, more and
more unimportant, more and more uninspired, except perhaps as a kind of holding
place over life. Life became a scientific study of a permanently faded past or
a series of strategies geared at shaping the future. Everything counted in the
spiritual hopper but the now, everything was grist for the spiritual mill but
the now. Now was lost time, waiting time, hard time.
One kind of religious life had gone and another kind of religious
life, everybody promised, was coming. Someday. Few, if any, said anything about
the nature, value, energy and life quality of religious life now. The present
itself, it seemed, had little value, little character, little quality, little
of the spiritual life.
Clearly, the question of whether or not religious life has made a
valuable contribution to church and society in the past is passe. History gives
clear confirmation of that. The role religious orders and congregations have
played in the development and preservation of art, learning, architecture,
social development and church life in ages past reaches the levels of the
incalculable.
Indeed, we stand on valiant shoulders. Foundresses and founders
battled for their vision, even against the church, until church and state alike
called them blessed. Congregations built empires of social service agencies.
Individual members in every congregation rose to civic prominence in generation
after generation. Clearly, to question the past value of religious life is, at
this stage, almost boring.
Surely, too, the consuming question for religious life in our day
must be more than what shape religious life shall take in years to come.
Frankly, who cares? That we must live and think in such a way that we make the
future possible is one thing. That we should abandon a consciousness of the
energizing quality of the present in order to live in the far-off-but-not-here
is entirely another. To prepare for the future is one thing; to forfeit or
forget or forgo the power and purpose of the present is entirely another. What
religious need to know at this period in history is whether or not religious
life has any value now, is good now, is worth living now, is holy-making now,
is beautiful now.
The question of present value is a much more difficult one than
whether the past was good and the future is possible. The question is whether
or not there is purpose in the present. And if so, what is its purpose? Can
religious life be revived? Should religious life be revived? Is there any fire
left in these ashes?
Grieshog
The Irish have a word for it. Grieshog, Gaelic speakers
tell us, is the process of burying warm coals in ashes at night in order to
preserve the fire for the cold morning to come. Instead of cleaning out the
cold hearth, people preserved yesterday's glowing coals under beds of ash
overnight in order to have fast-starting new fire the next day. The process is
an extremely important one. Otherwise, if the coals go out, a whole new fire
must be built and lit when morning comes, an exercise that takes precious time
and slows the more important work of the new day.
The primary concern, then, was that the fire from yesterday not be
permitted to burn out completely at the end of the day. On the contrary, coals
hidden from sight under heaps of ash through the long, dark night were tended
carefully so that the fire could leap to life again at first light. The old
fire did not die; it kept its heat in order to be prepared to light the new
one.
It is a holy process, this preservation of purpose, of energy, of
warmth and light in darkness. What we call death and end and loss in our lives,
as one thing turns into another, may, in these terms, be better understood as
grieshog, as the preservation of the coals, as refusing to go cold. Our
responsibility, both new and older members of us, may simply be to stay
religious till the day we die so that religious life may live long after we
do.
"Time is the substance from which I am made," Jorge Luis Borges
writes. "Time is a river which carries me along, but I am the river; it is a
tiger that devours me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire that consumes me, but I
am the fire" (Labyrinths: A New Refutation of Time). I am, in other
words, what is to become. What is going on around me is going on within me now
and will or will not happen because of me. I am both the vehicle and the
substance of the future. What I am now, religious life will be in the future.
There is no future without me because the future is within me.
The thought sobers a person to the center of the soul. Religious
life will not die in the future unless it is dead in religious already. Each
and every religious alive today is its carrier. Each of us is its life. I
myself am whatever good it is. When people ask about the state of religious
life, they are asking about me. What will religious life look like in the
future? The answer is an easy one.
To get a glimpse of the coming religious life, all a religious has
to do is to look in a reflecting pool: Is there energy of heart shining out of
the eyes there? Is there a pounding commitment to a wild and unruly gospel
there? Is the spiritual life aglow there? Is there risk there? Is there
unflagging commitment, undying intensity, unequivocal determination to be what
I say I am? Or has the old glow gone dull? Is life now simply a matter of
enduring the days and going through the motions? Or is religious life in a
brand new arc demanding more discipline from me and giving more life through me
than ever?
Too much surrender
If religious life suffers from anything in the present, it may
well be from too much surrender to demise and too little realization of what it
means to maintain the coals, to fan a fire. Resignation reigns now where
recklessness should be.
The notion that religious life is dead has become commonplace. For
too many, perhaps, it has also become an operational motto, a given, one of the
facts of a life gone sour in midstream. The temptation then is to make our
highest aspiration simply the intention to live life out rather than to live it
to the fullest with all the certainty and depth that we lived it in the form
before this one. And what about the women and men -- newer members of religious
communities, few, yes, but stalwart nevertheless -- who come looking for
spiritual fire among us and are getting damped by the weight of the
self-fulfilling prophecies of pending demise? What is the responsibility of the
fire-tenders to those who come to a fire but find that the fire has been
allowed to go cold? Is the problem that there are fewer vocations or that there
are fewer fires blazing high enough to yet be seen?
The truth is that the problem of change pales in the face of the
problem of anomie. If religious life fails, it will not be because religious
life changed. It will be because the religious of this period of history have
lost a sense of the spirituality of the present and sold their souls instead
either to the past or to the future. If religious life fails, it will be
because we ourselves, our individual and corporate selves, lost a sense of the
value of the present, the power of the present, the challenge of the present,
the meaning of the present, the sanctity of the present.
Scripture, on the other hand, gives us a model that is quite the
opposite. Jacob first works seven years for Leah, the bride he did not seek,
and then, still driven by his original vision of life, works seven more for
Rachel, the bride he sought in the first place but whose giving was delayed. In
each case, Jacob works just as hard, with just as much fervor, with just as
much care. In each case, the work is just as important. In each case, Jacob
never stints, never quits, never withdraws his heart though each case is
different. Jacob, clearly, is the patron saint of contemporary religious
life.
Jacob teaches us continuance of spirit in a time of change. Jacob
teaches us that reversals of our life plans are not nearly the obstacles to
life we think they are. Through Jacob we come to see that we are not always
capable of recognizing the value of where we find ourselves in life.
In Jacob we realize that reversals simply attune the heart to
higher things again and make us listen for the original voice, for the first
sound that moved our souls, for that moment of innocence when everything fell
away between the soul and God and made life a dance over glass instead of an
endurance test. If anything, Jacob teaches us most of all that it is not change
that threatens religious life; it is stinting that desiccates the soul; it is
stinting that wrings life out of life; it is stinting that turns us to hollow
and shrivels us to dust.
Holding back on the promise is worse than breaking it. Once the
fire goes out, once the coals go cold, once the stoking of the soul begins to
stop, it is not the cold that kills, it is the inability to rekindle the flame
that once we held within the breast and now have left to smother that damps the
heart and confuses the mind, wearies the body and slays the soul.
But it is not a dying time for religious life. It is an important
time for religious life, a time of great new birth in embryo, a time for total
surrender and total involvement at the same time. This generation of religious
will decide the birth of the next, aborted or stillborn, bright-minded or
open-souled.
It is what is happening now in religious life that will measure
its goodness, its holy tenacity, its depth of spirit for ages to come. And what
is happening now is the task of a holy tenacity and indomitable zeal that
enables the young to expect the impossible and the old to be willing to begin
again.
A confusion of spirit
The real tragedy of the present state of religious life, then, is
not that it is in turmoil. The real tragedy is that it suffers from a confusion
of spirit. When religious life, we thought, looked most alive -- when religious
robotization had reached the peak of the industrial model that spawned it,
producing products at a great rate and organizing people by the thousands -- it
was actually most dead. And did not know it. Questions had stopped; thinking
had stopped; even personal spiritual development had been reduced to modes and
exercises and formulas. The regular life had been substituted for the spiritual
life.
At the same time, now, when religious life calmly and commonly
declares itself dead, it may be more alive than it has been for generations.
For the first time in decades, perhaps in centuries, religious life pulses with
new energy and stands steeped in the greatest questions of the time.
Surely it is the religious of the church -- the ones who claim a
consuming passion for God -- who will first ask the question the world wants
answered. Where is God, in a world that flirts with magic and is inoculated
against mystery by the seductions of science itself? What links the material to
the spiritual and makes the spiritual material at the same time?
What makes for church? What defies the oppressive claims of
gender? What determines age? What defines death? What measures life? What is
authenticity and what is not? What makes for the spiritual purposefulness of a
period without apparent purpose? What is religious life itself and what
spirituality underlies it at a time when the questions are crucial but the
coals are low and the ashes are growing cold?
The spirituality of religious life today is neither the
spirituality of the cross nor the spirituality of the resurrection. The
spirituality of our time is the spirituality of Holy Saturday: a spirituality
of confusion and consternation, of ineffectiveness and powerlessness, of faith
in darkness and the power of hope. It is a spirituality that carries on when
carrying on seems most futile.
This is not a time for quitting simply because the past is past
and the present is unclear. This is not a time for not beginning just because
the journey is uncharted. In fact, what an older generation of religious
promised a lifetime ago may only now be beginning to come to pass, to make its
demands, to reveal its meaning. What a newer, younger generation of religious
do now to create the next moment in religious history out of the dust of the
old may only come to promise in years to come. But that's all right. The
commitment basic to religious life has little or nothing to do with what
religious do. Religious commitment is about why they do what they do.
The spirituality of productivity is over. Religious do not give
their lives away because an institution runs hospitals, no matter how good
those hospitals may be. They do not limit their own life options simply to
multiply prayers for those whose life activities never end. They do not exist
to provide a labor force for people who, if they did not have this one, would
never notice. In a society where the once radical concerns of education,
medical care and social services have gone mainstream, specific works cannot
justify, explain or impel religious life.
What must drive religious life today is the spirituality of
creation, where, for far too many, hope dies in darkness and smolders in ashes
waiting for the dawn of that day when simply the right to ask the difficult
questions themselves will be understood as an act of faith, a sign of fidelity
to the God who calls to us from the other side of mystery.
Scripture defines a clear model of service and change, of change
and new service where commitment alone bridges the gap between old certainties
and new challenge. In Genesis, Jacob sets out to achieve one thing and finds
himself faced with a new and different task. Jacob laid his life down for
Rachel, and got Leah instead. It was not simply a private blow, a life
challenge, a moment of struggle for Jacob. It was also, in the divine scheme of
things, an act of personal faith that sowed the seeds of a whole new world for
the Chosen People at large.
In this day, too, older religious know well the meaning of a life
that begins in one thing but becomes another, and younger religious know what
it is to have the burden of beginning again in the spirit of the first. What is
important is that the relation between the two life tasks never be forgotten,
never be misunderstood. Jacob made a promise and kept it through both its
dimensions.
When Jacob was given the right to marry Rachel, the dream of his
life, he also got contention and challenge far beyond his wildest notions of
them. He got a second life.
Contemporary religious life has lived two lives, as well. The
first was staid and standard, a good life with clear rules and certain rewards,
a private exercise of personal virtues. The second life, on the other hand, is
wild and unclear, makes demands on us we never dreamed possible, demands that
everyone, young and old, begin again and, most of all, has a meaning far beyond
the church alone, the Catholic ghetto and the struggle for personal salvation.
This time religious life has meaning for the world at large.
Like Jacob laboring for Leah, it is time for us to begin again,
this time to achieve the purpose we came for in the first place. The French
proverb teaches, "Everything passes, everything perishes, everything palls." To
have something leave us is not a sign of loss. It is only a sign that we are
meant to go on to something else, to what, like Jacob, we set out to achieve
from the very beginning.
But that will take a keeping of the coals.
National Catholic Reporter, February 21,
1997
|
|