IV - Problematic Affecting the Consecrated Life in Mission Territories Today

These various changes - psycho-sociological, ecclesiastical - as well as those touching more immediately on the Consecrated Life itself, have also given rise to areas of problematic in the mission territories. And I would now like to touch on some of the more important ones that have been presented to the Mission Dicastery. I do not intend to give all of these areas of problematic, but those which have come to the attention of the Mission Dicastery on a rather consistent basis.

The Theology of Salvation. There are certain ideas or notions or understandings, convictions, teachings that are not entirely clear in regard to the "Theology of Salvation" which have affected the life and missionary activity of these Institutes and Societies. I would like to give (briefly) some examples of these ideas or notions or understandings, interpretations, etc.
Christ is no longer considered as the unique or only Saviour of all human beings. Most of you here are aware that this tendency on the part of some authors gave rise to different debates, international symposiums and various articles and books written in regard to this problem, especially in the 80's and 90's. In response to this matter, the Holy Father attempted in his Encyclical of 1990 "Redemptoris Missio" to present in a clear way the Church's teaching in regard to this question. This Encyclical was followed in 1995, by a series of "Catechetical Instructions" - which the same Pontiff gave for his weekly Audiences in the first half of that year. And the same Pope has returned to this question on various occasions since, e.g. in a weekly talk that he gave on February 4, 1998, entitled "Christ the Only Saviour". Moreover, today, in various ways, one encounters certain difficulties in understanding the principle, also given by His Holiness in one of his Weekly Catechetical Talks he began on 31 1995, where he reminded his audience that the way of Salvation is essentially linked to the Mystery of the Church. While the Holy Father is well aware that this truth must be carefully explained, with the proper terminology and nuances, still he has insisted that the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" remains true, even today, but properly understood (RM, 9; Missionary Catechesis, May 31 1995). And again, there is the feeling or opinion - perhaps even conviction on the part of some - that any and every religion can be a valid way for achieving salvation. Whence the urgency of proclamation and conversion has somewhat diminished in the minds of many missionaries

All these questionings which touch on the role of Christ, the Church and religion have at times and in different ways given rise to doubts or confusion both in regard to the very need for missionary Institutes "ad vitam" or for the need for Institutes that have or are thinking of accepting some missionary activity "ad gentes" as one of their apostolic endeavors, to engage in missionary activity in the sense of direct evangelisation and the preaching of the Gospel and the implantation of the Church. Moreover in some instances, it has been brought to our attention that some Institutes have, to some degree, in groups and settings where the Gospel and the Church are either absent or insufficient, directed more and more of their efforts to different forms of inter-religious dialogue, ecumenical activity and human promotion or development projects rather than to direct evangelisation, even though not excluding this latter type of missionary activity. All this notwithstanding the fact that the Bishop has invited them into the diocese for the work of primary evangelisation either from scratch as it were, or in its initial stages within a given geographical area, and as an integral part of the diocesan pastoral activity

Again, the relationships of the CEP with various Missionary Institutes of the Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life have revealed certain difficulties in regard to their charisma that have arisen between them and the pastoral activities which local Bishops have asked them to undertake and which have brought about a certain reduction of their Institute's availability, desire and their founding charisma to engage in true missionary activity "ad gentes". For example, one finds that these Institutes are being asked by local Bishops to assume responsibility for parishes and works that have already been established in the diocese or for charges that concern the smooth and efficient running of certain diocesan structures or offices within the diocesan Curia or in Centers of Pastoral activity. While one can understand that such tasks might be given to missionaries in the early stages of a diocese's existence, as time goes on this type of particular pastoral care should be done by local diocesan priests, thereby allowing the missionary Institutes to engage in their charismatic work of primary evangelisation and the implantation of the Gospel among "groups and in settings which are non-Christian because the preaching of the Gospel and the presence of the Church are either absent or insufficient" (RM, 34). This is in keeping with the directive given to missionary Institutes in the Conciliar Document "ad gentes" where it speaks of the passage of territories from the "ius Commissionis" to the status of a diocese, with its usual structures: "A new situation arises when the mandate to care for a particular territory expires. Then the Conferences of Bishops and the Institutes will come together and draw up norms which will regulate relations between the local Ordinaries and the Institutes. It will be the responsibility of the Holy See to outline the general principles in accordance with which regional or even local contracts will be drawn up.
"Although the Institutes will be prepared to continue the work which they have begun, collaborating in the ordinary care of souls, yet as the number of local clergy increases, it should be arranged that the Institutes, insofar as it is in keeping with their end, would remain faithful to the diocese and generously undertake special work in it, or the care of some particular area of it" (AG, 32; RM, 34) and we might add that has some connection with the mission"ad gentes" (AG, 32)

In a rather enlightening commentary on this article by Suso Brechte in the fourth volume of the Herder & Herder series of Commentaries on the Vatican II Documents (1969) pp. 166-167, the author, from the juridical point of view indicates that there are two very different positions in regard to the missions. A missionary territory may be entrusted to a missionary Institute (or also to a particular Church or diocese) on the basis of what is called the "ius Commissionis", or the young particular Church at a certain stage of its growth and maturation, may be elevated to the status of a diocese and made subject to a local native Bishop. When the territory is committed to a religious order, the missionary Institute accepts the obligation of devoting itself with all its powers to the preaching of the Faith, sending trained missionary personnel, sharing the financial burdens, obeying the responsible missionary authorities (Apostolic Prefect or Vicar or Ecclesiastical Superior - in the case of a "missio sui iuris") and working deliberately at the development of the "Missio" or Prefecture or Vicariate into an independent particular Church (diocese). (Instructions were given for this situation by Propaganda Fide in 1929 (cf. AAS 22 [1930] 111-115). "Since the end of World War II, the regular hierarchy has gradually been established in most missionary territories and many dioceses have been handed over to native residential Bishops" (S. Brechten, loc sit. p. 166).

In the former instance (the "Ius Commissionis") the Apostolic Prefect or Vicar or Ecclesiastical Superior was the representative of the Pope, an envoy of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, and a delegate of a missionary Institute. He possessed no direct powers, only a delegated authority. The diocesan Bishop, on the other hand, is the regular holder of jurisdiction with personal responsibility for preaching the Gospel in his diocese, in virtue of his consecration and appointment to the diocese. He is the head of a particular Church in communion with the universal Church and the Bishop of Rome, and exercises his office in the name of and on behalf of Christ. Thus we can see that in this "passage" the responsibility and obligation of proclaiming the Gospel in a particular territory has passed from the Missionary Institute to the diocesan Bishop and thus the missionary Institute has been relieved of its juridical obligation for the responsibility of the territory. New agreements have to be made, but the partners to them are no longer Propaganda Fide and the religious order, but the diocesan Bishop and the missionary Institute" (op. cit. pp.166-7).

This changed situation between missionary Institutes and the CEP has been rendered even more complex by the fact that the Apostolic Constitution of Pope John Paul II, "Pastor Bonus" concerning the Roman Curia and the various competencies of the different Dicasteries published on June 28, 1988 and taking effect on March 1, 1989, removed from the jurisdiction of the CEP all religious Institutes of both Pontifical Right and Diocesan Right, including those with an exclusively missionary finality placing them under the direct or at least ultimate jurisdiction of the Congregation for Institutes of the Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, for whatever concerns their internal life and structures (PB 90, par. 1). However, for what concerns their missionary activity in the territories of the CEP that Dicastery enjoys a certain competence over them. (PB, 90 §1). The only exception to this general rule concerns Missionary Societies of Apostolic Life which have an exclusive missionary finality. At present there are 15 of these Societies of Pontifical Right and they continue to come under the jurisdiction of the CEP even for what concerns their internal life and structures. However even in these Societies their missionary activity in a diocese is subject to the local diocesan Bishop.

While the transfer of all Institutes of the Consecrated Life from the CEP to the CIVCSVA, even those which have an exclusively missionary finality, touches their juridical dependence, one can well imagine that it also affects them psychologically, since the tendency is to bring various problems and difficulties that are encountered to the Roman Curial Office on which the Institute depends, rather than to the CEP on which their missionary activity in dioceses under its jurisdiction, depends, unless the problem includes their missionary activity. In this case the CEP which has jurisdiction over both the missionary activity and the diocesan Bishop can act as a mediator and judge.

Whence it can safely be said that this transfer of jurisdiction brought about by the Apostolic Constitution "Pastor Bonus" of 1988, has not helped to cement and increase the close ties that have existed between the CEP and, especially, missionary Institutes, that existed before, nor does it seem to have served to intensify the exclusively missionary commitments of these Institutes