|
1. Inter-generational dialogue
The story begins
with a community meeting, and we listen in:
The small Louvain
community is gathered: two older Belgian Jesuits, one teaching computers, the
other working with refugees, and younger Jesuits in their thirties: two from
India, one each from Belgium, Ireland, Korea and Scotland.
They are talking
about the new decrees of the 34th General Congregation of 1995, and the older
Jesuits are saying, "The language of these documents is quite
old-fashioned, it's very theological, quite traditional." And the younger
ones say, "No, we think it's modern."
"But read
GC32" insist the two, referring to the famous 32nd General Congregation of
1975. "It's really modern, contemporary language." And the younger
group replies, "We think it's somewhat old-fashioned."
The important
words we use in religious life since Vatican II have been chosen with great
care. And yet in the space of one or two decades, their reference, their
resonance and even some of their meaning have undergone an imperceptible but
real shift. Such shifts, which correspond to people's age, become like
differences of culture between the generations. These may seem too obvious to
affirm, and it takes an effort to perceive the differences and recognise their
importance.
Changes in
religious life respond to changes in its surrounding context: the needs of the
people, the injustices suffered by the poor, the approach of the Church, the
current thinking and available resources of our Congregation. But the persons
who carry out the mission themselves change in their manner of living and
working, and this has the effect of changing the incarnation of the charisma.
"Older"
generation ¾ obviously a relative term ¾ means us, with studies completed,
final vows pronounced, some years and even decades working in our assignment.
We mature religious, our responses shaped by experience of the world and Church
some decades ago, represent existing religious life. These attitudes and
responses born in an earlier time do need to be renewed, we acknowledge, and
such renewal is what the present Assembly is discussing.
"Younger"
generation means religious in formation, before final vows, who are being
introduced to the mission. They have an experience of growing up in a different
society and a different Church. For them, too, religious life is a question of
"ricollocazione": a dramatic change of context in response to a call
which they find authentic, radical, promising. Their encounters with this
concrete form of religious life (as lived in this novitiate, in this professed
house) lead them to wonder: "Can we find our place here?" Their
wonder takes the form of questions such as the following, questions which
(sometimes? rarely?) get asked out loud:
Such questions are not necessarily new. The
established generation lives out its way of answering them, and this response
collectively constitutes each of our Congregations today. The questions become
urgent when the younger group re-asks them according to its own sensibilities,
and tests the established responses against its experience of
society/culture/Church and its future hopes.
The potential for misunderstanding is great, and the
stakes are high because, unlike groups which have the option of either engaging
or ignoring each other, here the evolution of religious life depends
intrinsically on the transition between generations.
There are many ways of carrying the transition
forward: in living community life, in reading reality, in shared prayer and spirituality,
in working together, in growing as colleagues and primarily as brothers or
sisters in religion. If both groups are willing to listen, to respect, to
learn, to give, to receive; if elders resist imposing their meanings; if
younger ones are willing to learn beyond their immediate experience: then real
dialogue can and will result. The common space in which such dialogue might
occur must be found, established, used and protected.
Religious who, immersed in the conflictual and
suffering world, live their vocation and spirituality transparently while
competently and enthusiastically carrying out their mission, are an important
encouragement for younger members of the Congregation as well as an attraction
for candidates. Young religious, in cooperation with their lay colleagues, will
reshape the ministry in response to the changing needs of God's people and
incarnate the charisma anew.
Many Congregations have clearly committed themselves
to renewal, to simplicity, to community life, and young religious often live
these values during formation. But the same values, insofar as they do not seem
to be appropriated and implemented by the "adults" but supplanted by
other options, remain associated with and limited to the early phases of
religious life. The process reaches a natural limit: formation cannot
effectively form young members contrary to the mainstream, and it serves only
to a limited degree as a means for reforming the Congregation as a whole.
Both generations are vitally concerned that the
apostolic and spiritual patrimony of the Congregation really be passed on. This
vital inter-generational dialogue has to be mutual (otherwise it is not
dialogue!) but it lacks symmetry. On the one hand, the young not only dialogue
with their elders out of interest but are being formed by the Congregation and
socialised into it. On the other, the young have a certain weight, priority and
responsibility, not because they are necessarily right, but because ¾ by
definition of history ¾ the very future of the Congregation depends on them.
As in the spirited community meeting at Louvain, the
points questioned or resisted by the young are ones which "we" (the
Congregation establishment) do well to question, too. From a first aggressive
reaction "They don't understand," we might pass to healthy
self-doubt, "Is what we say comprehensible?"
This viewpoint, unveiled by the young, bears the
burden of great words like authenticity, communicability, credibility, or
transparency. These are the very conditions for the translation ("ricollocare"!)
of the charisma/intuition into today's reality. Our charisma is comprehensible
or intelligible when others ¾ younger others! ¾ find in it answers to questions
they have and responses to deep desires.
Our mission statements, plans and priorities may
express generalities that comfort us but, lacking focus or direction, they make
no real commitment and generate no enthusiasm. If a plan affirms everything,
omits or denies nothing, what does it communicate to someone who is not already
"in"? A plan/project has to be clear and selective; it has to dot i's
and cross t's, come down to earth in concrete options of persons, places, times
and things. Or do "externals" ¾ buildings, clothing, hospitality,
prayer or liturgy in public ¾ communicate what we want to say, or something
different/contrary, or very little at all?
Our mission statement or ministries plan is the
intelligible translation ("ricollocazione"!) of our charisma into
history today and tomorrow ¾ or it is unintelligible and fails to
"ricollocare". What we are as community, lived spirituality, work and
formation really have to communicate, intelligibly and transparently, a decent
proportion of what we claim in words (the teachings of Jesus, of the Founder,
of Vatican II). Then someone younger has the chance of saying, "Oh, I see,
that's what you are about."
|