1.1. The breakdown in relationships
It seems to me that the vc is risking a gradual loss of the fundamental nature of its relationships. The phenomenon is probably not very recent and one could trace it back along a progressive line that developed over the years as a result of certain social and cultural influences; recently, though, the loss has made itself felt much more clearly. The Renaissance, then a certain radical humanism, the Enlightenment and neo-Enlightenment led to the ever-growing central importance of the individual and his various abilities, especially mental and intellectual, and an increasingly restricted place for mystery and the transcendent, for the person and personal relationships, for the principle of brotherhood and, therefore, also faith, objectivity and value judgments. The postmodern era has accented still further the process of narcissistic self-orientation which - in its turn - has in some way worsened the consequent process of shutting the individual inside himself, even if this takes place within a process of general enervation (see "weak thinking").

The vc, and more generally, the attitude of believers, could not fail to be affected by the influence (which, of course, has also had positive side effects); and as often happens in such cases, they have uncritically absorbed some of the more negative consequences of this culture. I refer in particular to a certain straying, in the vc, from the dimension of relationship - a dimension, as we were saying, which is one of the vc’s characteristic and constituent elements. It was in the years immediately after the Council that, for example, we began to talk of self-realization, of emotional integration, referring, in (quite legitimate) exoneration, to the earlier excessive emphasis on ‘community’. There is no doubt, however, that the process had begun long before that, putting down quite substantial roots, both in individuals and in the collective way of thinking. Let us look at a few ways in which this religious individualism has expressed itself.

In contacts with the Church, for example, a certain separation has become quite evident, especially in the years before the Council: almost a psychological distancing of the vc, as if the latter could go it alone and provide - through its own resources: structures (ever more imposing), people (sometimes not very carefully recruited), finances (well-managed and successful) and specializations (much sought after and appreciated) - salvation, for itself and for others. A certain kind of vc seemed to make itself almost self-reliant, even setting itself up in competition with its diocesan counterparts; we hear stories about this, which are neither too edifying, nor too far removed from home. There was a need for a document to try and control, or re-establish a certain kind of relationship with the other ecclesial bodies. We are not trying to say now that it was all the responsibility of the vc, but there was certainly something missing from our ecclesial sensitivity. In contacts between religious institutions themselves it is still possible to come across the same somewhat individualistic and downright competitive spirit. Our charisms are often ignorant of each other and, to a great extent, continue to "march in broken file". We had to wait until recent decades for certain collegial bodies to be born, to gain importance and to function efficiently. But the culture of the "charismatic communion" still finds it difficult to assert itself definitely and practically, and a certain attitude of self-management, with associated bouts of competition between one institution and another, has by no means disappeared; for instance, something that sometimes becomes a sort of "hunt the vocation". In contacts with the outside world and with history the vc has for a long time lived in a strange relationship of sufficiency and superiority, from the old model of flight from the world to the rationale of a kind of safe distance. Obviously, a large part of the vc has also made its way into and become totally immersed in worldly events and well knows the sufferings of so much of humanity, but no matter how sincere and generous we are, this is sometimes done with the attitude of a "do gooder" who shares his wealth but does not manage to involve others in his life, his spiritual riches, his relationship with God. It is a fact that we religious have often done far more than others ever could, but we have rarely been able to transmit our own spiritual wealth, our charisms. Contacts within the religious community have also experienced a certain poverty in relationships. This was revealed in a frank and concerned manner by the document on fraternal life in community when it spoke of the "weakening of community" caused by a particular phenomenon, the "lack and poor quality of communication" and, to be more precise, the "poor quality of the fundamental communication of spiritual wealth". This is why – the document states with extreme clarity and truthfulness – in our fraternities, we "communicate about marginal matters and problems, but rarely share what is vital and central to the path of consecration". The results are painful: for example, the ever more individualistic connotation of spiritual experience, the ever more pervasive attitude of self-management (the myth of self-fulfillment), a lack of feeling towards others, a search for meaningful and compensatory relationships outside the community (for one’s own so-called emotional integration). These are serious comments that raise a sore point.

All in all, the breakdown of relationships seems, unfortunately, to be a fairly obvious phenomenon. It is as if the vc had become a little hoarse, or almost dumb, or deaf and dumb, or with only the vague outlines of a face, unable to justify its experiences or express the beauty of a life totally consecrated to the Eternal, and to attract others to join in this contemplation of the beauty and in the fervor of giving oneself. As a result, the element of relationships in community life, indeed within the community itself, has gradually weakened. The vc has become less communal, less expressive of the need for fraternity that exists inside humans, and still less expressive of the trinitarian communion which forms the basis of every worldly relationship and which the vc should echo and recall to us.

Perhaps it is unfair to speak of a precise responsibility, comprised of omissions and inadequacies on the part of the vc itself; in fact, as mentioned earlier, a cultural influence was at the bottom of it all. On the other hand, this neither justifies or absolves us, but at least it enables us to understand that this is no longer the cultural model today and that we are moving more and more towards a model of man deeply marked by relationships, by "being with", by the memory of a relationship that gave life to man and which man leans toward, the nostalgia for a meeting which no one can ever erase from the human heart. "The anthropological view acceptable today does not see relationships as accidental, as a kind of accessory to man. Nor can one reduce relational nature to the psychological or sociological fields; one must situate it in the theological world which is proper to it, a world that is more ontological than moral".

Either the vc will understand this cultural period of transit and once more adopt a deeply relational and communal approach, or it will risk placing itself outside the meaningful human context, no longer meeting any demand or any aspect, any expectation held by men and women today, and, therefore, having nothing more to say, no image to present, no appeal.