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:

What do the ministries of our Congregation actually do? How do they respond to the needs of certain people (our target group in its unchanged/traditional form, or in a new form, or a different public altogether)? What do the efforts really mean in terms of faith in Jesus Christ, religious life, ordained and other ministries in the Church? What faith motivates this life, and how does this ministry in turn express our faith? Can I imagine myself working here as a brother or sister, as a priest, and thereby fulfilling my human, religious and priestly vocation?

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."