2.2. Relationship as fraternity
Here relationship is still more evident, though the way of experiencing fraternity is not always obvious and crystal-clear from the point of view of new vocations. On the one hand, there is no doubt about the mysterious fascination of this classic value of the vc. Yet at the same time that it attracts, it is by no means a value that is easy and simple to live with; in fact, if it is true that some people find it attractive, it is also true that it arouses fear in others. Nor is it a fact that those who find it powerfully attractive possess the ability and freedom to live out such a value. Today’s youth, notoriously less emotionally stable due to their lack experience of family relationships, often present an ambivalent attitude towards relationships in general, an attitude to which a certain amount of attention should be paid, both when it is enthusiastic towards relationships and fraternity and when it shows fear in their regard.

2.2.1. The fraternal condition
First and foremost, the vocation to consecrate oneself to God is, by its nature, a vocation to fraternity because of the very fact that it is a gift (the charism) that comes from on high, a gift that no one can presume to interpret alone, that can be understood only with the contribution of all who have received such a gift. In the same way that "no one becomes a Christian on his own but is made so by the Church, nor becomes a Christian through his own efforts but "by means of" putting himself at the service of the Church and of her mission", so it is for the relationship between the consecrated individual and the religious community. Fraternity, in religious life, at once arises as an intrinsic requirement of the charism, a requirement more theological than psychological, and should be examined firstly at this level. This examination is important because it reveals how much the young person has understood or is coming to understand of the nature of the gift, its origin and its richness and complexity, as something that - because it comes from God and shows one of His plans - is destined to ennoble the community, is not the property of the individual and must be shared, explained in simple terms accessible to everyone, and can be understood only by those who respect it in its extrovert-relational logic. The charism, any charism, by its nature creates fraternity, constantly recalls relationship, and tells of a vocation to live with others; no one can understand it if they shut themselves inside themselves. Far less put it into practice. Hence it is not enough to confirm that there is a general willingness to live out relationships; rather, it is indispensable to evaluate the ability to live out the fraternal condition as the condition typical of those in the consecrated life, their specific way of being, the shape and standard of their life, its essential character linked to the possibility of fully understanding the gift of the Eternal.

2.2.2. Fraternity as a criterion for vocation
Fraternity, therefore, is not simply and exclusively a problem of charity, of learning the difficult art of living with those different from oneself, but a constituent dimension of the religious charism, for the following reasons:

because the religious charism, from which our religious families arose and arise, is not given to an individual, but to a group, a collection of people who become a community as a result of that very same gift given to all of them, which constitutes their new and common identity; because the same charism is given to everyone "according to the measure of grace", i.e. in various shapes and forms, and becomes a comprehensible fact expressing its full beauty only if and as far as each individual shares his part of the gift with the others; because, I repeat, the religious charism is always linked, from the point of view of content, with fraternity. Indeed, every charism is given for the edification of the community and is at its service. Not only is it never the property of the individual, it can never even be finalized simply to private perfection but has to be made clearly available to everyone so that what the Spirit suggests to the individual believer or to a group of believers can reach the whole Church.

Each of these dimensions has its corresponding series of criteria for making judgments.

2.2.2.1. Identity and belonging
This is the ability to feel oneself part of a group of people with whom one shares the same roots, the same values, the identical idea of the Father, with the result that those people become brothers and sisters, and the group becomes one’s own family. The sense of belonging stems from the sense of identity, being one of its essential components. In fact, man must belong to something or someone, he is made to deliver his life and his heart, his calling and his future into the hands (or heart) of another; he himself will choose who he gives them to, but he cannot avoid making the gift. In this way belonging develops and matures the capacity for relationship.

The sense of belonging, then, is demonstrated by precise internal measures: it means trust in others and in life, to the point of sharing with them material and spiritual wealth and choosing to depend on, or agreeing to be limited by, the group and its standards; it means the freedom to live with people one has not chosen, affection which does not come from flesh and blood but, all the same, is rich in humanity; it means, in essence, the ability to fall in love, in the sense of the freedom to like other people without limits or restrictions (sympathies or antipathies) that are too human, deciding... to grow old with those God has put around one, in total giving of oneself. In this sense, falling in love represents the supreme summit of the freedom to give oneself, the highest form of relationship. A young person who is unable to fall in love is by definition unsuited to consecration..

Anyone who asks to enter a religious institution must demonstrate this internal freedom that opens one up to fraternity and friendship. We must therefore be very careful of anyone who is slightly dubious or finds it difficult to give himself up because he does not trust [in others], or feels able to do so only with someone who is perfect: "he who trusts everyone shows he has little judgment; but he who trusts no one shows he has even less" (A. Graf). Or, at a higher level, "he who does not trust his neighbor usually has no trust in God" (C. Chapman) and is certainly not a relational person. Nor are empathy and a friendly outlook visible in those who want to flee the world so as to escape contamination by the ugliness and distortions of the present century and dream of the vc as an "ecological" and exclusive place.

It is not only the ability to live in community, but also a certain system of religious life (the vows, following a rule, various restrictions, etc) that requires this pre-existing freedom to give oneself and become dependent; those who do not have it are still dreaming the childish myth of absolute autonomy, still looking for self-realization by imposing oneself on others like an adolescent, still affected by the "Peter Pan syndrome", the perpetual youth who confuses freedom with the absence of ties. One day these people will become a burden for everyone in the community, because they do not belong to anyone.

2.2.2.2. Otherness and difference
One belongs to the group in which one recognizes one’s own identity, but without putting one’s brain on hold and without denying one’s own originality and that of others. It is not a balance that is quick or simple to achieve. There is usually a kind of apprenticeship to go through, but one is then brought to the freedom of accepting others’ differences, of allowing them to be themselves, of not making arguments out of differences, of discovering and welcoming the richness of relationships with those who are "other" than oneself. Today, even in our communities of young people, there is a kind of "latent homosexuality" around, a sort of attempt to recognize others, to level differences, to make others necessarily equal to oneself, to establish relationships only with those who are like oneself... and to create a way of living together that is the exact opposite of human and evangelical fraternity. At the other extreme is narcissism, an attempt to put oneself at the center of things, seeing everything in relation to oneself, but without letting oneself be touched, changed or enriched in the slightest possible way by others or by their originality. In both cases, neither the latent homosexual nor the narcissist is capable of truly living in relationship. In fact they are not capable of dialogue and empathy, either in community or in the apostolate. And nowadays those who are incapable of empathetic dialogue certainly cannot think of becoming consecrated.

Beware, therefore, of those who dream of the "observant community", where everyone must sing in chorus and everything ends up being dull and the same, where the idea of being together hides interests and claims for emotional gratification, and perhaps even the fear of solitude or of a too intimate relationship with a "different" person. Beware of those who have their own idea of perfect religious and community life and are still too afraid of boundaries that may be different, of sin, of their own and others’ weaknesses. But beware also of those who see the community simply as a tool they themselves can use, or the place for their own psychological or spiritual self-realization; those who do not feel others to be an indispensable medium for their relationship with God risk gradually building themselves "their own" God, becoming a kind of little eternal father who needs no one and who will continue the species of the consecrated individualist, often a bit drunk [with power/ideas], who has done so much damage to the vc and its image...

2.2.2.3. Responsibility and necessity
As we know, there are community users and community builders: the first simply set out to get everything they can out of fraternity and complain about what they find wrong with it, the second help to put things right and support the community, but in any case they know quite clearly that fraternity is what they themselves make it.

A sense of responsibility does not just mean taking on others’ loads, but feeling the need for their presence, appreciating the personality of those around you, seeing your brothers/sisters as a place where God is waiting for you and through whom He speaks to you. Those who "use" the community without feeling responsible to anyone else are dangerous; but so are those who have - or think they have - no need of anyone, who are self-sufficient, who do not even know, or do not remember, how many times other people, or life, have carried them on their shoulders. The basis for responsibility towards others lies in the grateful awareness of having been created, and in the corresponding certainty of being able to create.

More particularly, religious vocation means dedicating oneself to the institution, but it also means welcoming on one’s own shoulders the weight and responsibility of the religious community. Anyone with an Atlas complex (who thinks he has to carry the weight of the whole world on his shoulders) or, conversely, anyone who prefers passing the buck, are both very dubious bets from the vocational point of view. Once again, they are people who are not good at relationships, who may even be frightened of them. If it were up to them, as far as the apostolate is concerned, the vc would have to revive the model of the "city set on a hill" (cf. Matt. 5, 14), as a solid and compact community of saints and the elect, not greatly concerned with mission because it believes its life to be transparent in itself, its testimony immediately convincing.