|
Lent Series
Liminal Space Religious life has been totally co-opted
By RICHARD ROHR
I am afraid that we Friars Minor have become more a
curiosity than significant. -- Fr.Giacomo Bini, Franciscan minister
general
I guess some people could make a case that church does not need to
be liminal, that sacraments are fine as they are, that men need to build
towers, and that Lent can be understood in other ways than liminal space. But
it is hard for me to see how religious life can have any justification or any
future unless it is, in fact, some kind of anti-structure that is
challenging and also comforting the larger structure of society and church.
Structure is always threatened by anti-structure. We are all
threatened by what we cannot control. So it is easier to dismiss us or
trivialize us -- or more commonly, co-opt us. We men religious at least have
been quite ready to be co-opted both by church and by society. As a result, our
calling power, our raison dêtre, our very attractiveness is largely
gone.
A few young men come every year, get a great education and usually
leave after a few years, grateful for the experience. They like us, but they
dont tend to take us seriously. In my opinion, they know that they can
often live a life more on the edge outside of religious life. We are not
liminal anymore, we are just a stop on the pony express. That is why the larger
society finds us, as our Franciscan general says, curious more than
significant.
But what about the next generation? Who will maintain the pony
express station for the next group? It has now become a question of
sustainability, like the ecosystem itself. Most of my generation of religious
are still basking in the immense hard work, good investments and good name of
those who built religious life in America over the last 150 years.
Many of us, myself included, have also become very soft, very
comfortable and very individualistic. It is almost impossible not to in North
America or Europe, especially when you are a part of a large and old
institution. We are no longer on the edge, or even in the middle of most
things, except by courageous individual choice. Corporately, we are totally
co-opted, part of the system, enjoying its benefits too much to critique or
comfort either church or society. I must say, however, that some communities of
women seem to be amazing exceptions to this. We men got ordained for the most
part, just what Benedict and Francis and many of the brother communities
avoided. They knew, as many of the women religious know, that the monk, the
friar, the nun and the hermit could only thrive on the edge.
Religious life still seems to have strong viability in some
countries, such as India, where the religious tend to share the common plight.
There is no way to flee it. They are liminal by reason of their solidarity with
society and by their ability to invest that shared poverty with spiritual
meaning, service and joy. We in the First World dont corporately share
the lot of the marginalized, and so we cannot invest it with spiritual meaning
and joy. The advantage is that we often do bring critical perspective, needed
education, important contacts and the inner self-confidence that middle-class
success has given us. That is not bad, and probably why most major founders
were themselves not poor, but from their contemporary middle class or
higher.
The impossible question, therefore, becomes: How do you take
advantage of all the opportunities so that you can minister to others, and not
become a casualty of the system? How do you spend 12 years behind books,
seeking advancement, in trendy conversation groups -- and then go back to the
farm? Or even know how to talk to the farmer?
Let me offer one possible way out of this. I was struck in many
parts of Asia by the vitality of Buddhist religious life. They clearly have
maintained their liminality much more than we have. In Burma, Thailand and
Nepal there are still begging monks, much loved by the people, whereas we
Franciscans gave up mendicancy almost immediately.
But one very common and very different pattern is that such
religious life for Buddhists is normally not forever. It is a period of
formation, a necessary spiritual training offered to any and all in some
places. It might even be called an initiation. Of course, some always stay on
to keep training the next generation in the ways of wisdom. This keeps the
focus and goal very clear.
I am convinced that is what is happening in the various accounts
of the sending of the disciples (Luke 9:1-6, Matthew 10:1-42, and
Mark 6:1-13). We have written volumes to try to explain -- or explain away --
how, if, when and where Jesus could possibly have meant any of these
instructions: No shoes, no purse, stay overnight anywhere, greet no one
on the way, drive out your devils and come back and tell me about it!
What is this all for?
Well, it is absolutely clear initiation teaching. It was
never meant for an entire lifetime. It was training camp, boot camp, necessary
and crucial liminality. I am convinced, especially when I see a high percentage
of religious sour and give up in the second half of life, that this form of
life is best lived as an initiation, for a period of good years until you get
the major points down. Then go on with life, married or whatever, but with
freedom and radiance that can be leaven, salt and light to the world.
Once we can see that religious life is about initiation, then we
can rediscover deliberate and concentrated formation programs, and find the
elders who are quite willing to do it, because now the goal and purpose is
clear. Right now, most of us do not have a clue how or what to do in formation.
We all avoid it like the plague. And what is happening right now is such a
charade. I know religious life candidates who live in a total welfare state:
cars, free education, three hots and a cot, 100 channel TV and plenty of time
to watch it, little responsibility, generous weekly allowances, almost no
ministry to others, time for trips to the mall, frequent flights to other
places and home -- and all paid for by others!
This is a nice deal, but it has almost nothing to do with anything
liminal, much less the way of Jesus or initiation into anything but American
upper middle-class lifestyle. As the laity keep saying, If this is
poverty, then I would love to see chastity. The irony is that such
candidates themselves will not finally respect such a system, because they
finally know that it stands for little except its own self-preservation.
In the meantime, seminarians will enjoy the free lunch. But they
will not be initiated men. If they do perhaps stay, I hope they are not your
parish ministers, because you will not get much service out of them, as we are
seeing in many of those ordained in the last few years.
I do not blame the candidates, I do not even blame the lack of
elders, but I blame the system that has not raised up elders. I blame the
system that has given men ascribed status, fancy uniforms and titles (just what
the immature male falls for) before they have done any of lifes homework.
Thank God, I do not speak of a large percentage of male religious who have
grown up, met God and taken their vocation and their ministry seriously. They
are sustaining the whole thing.
But I have talked to too many provincials and personnel committees
around the world to doubt that my critical assessment is true. We inside all
know it is true, but until we are allowed to say that the emperor has no
clothes, nothing is going to change. Maybe we like naked emperors and immature
priests. Then we dont have to feel ashamed about our own lack of
growth.
Let me end with a note of hope. A couple years ago, there was a
knock on my door here in Albuquerque. A young man, named Thomas Neitzke,
introduced himself as a Jesuit novice from Minnesota. I invited him in, and he
told me his story. How nice when a Jesuit comes begging from a Franciscan! He
had been sent by his novice master, along with his fellow novices, on a 30-day
pilgrimage. He was able to pick some far-away city, and was given $30 and a
one-way bus ticket. He was not to return for 30 days, and he was to survive,
learn, beg, improvise, trust, stay in shelters, ask for hospitality and meet
God in new ways. This is liminal space, this is Ignatius taken seriously, this
is Jesus taken seriously. This is more Franciscan than the Franciscans. This is
classic initiation procedure, and no matter what Tom does with his life now (he
has made final vows in the Society of Jesus), he will be a wise man. And he has
a very wise and courageous novice master. This is a religious life that
deserves to last -- and will last. It is not a curiosity. It is
significant.
Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr, a popular retreat master, speaker
and writer, is founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation in
Albuquerque. This article is the sixth in a series.
National Catholic Reporter, March 8,
2002
|
|