an ecclesial approach a Marist approach a Gospel approach
When Marie-Claude Grulier (Co-ordinatrice of the Association of Marist Laity) asked meto take on the preparation of this intervention which is intended at the same time to help usgrasp the implications of this step being taken by the lay Marists, and to stand back fromand examine this setting out on a journey, I thought that she had really explained it allvery clearly in her letter of February, and I wondered if it really was worth going over itall again. But she insisted. So I accepted; but I am going to deviate a bit from themandate given.
Marie-Claude insisted on the ecclesial implications, the stakes for the Church, of such astep. And she is right. But I will also stress what is at stake for Marists; the implicationsfor the Church, in the Church, of our present Marist direction. The intuition that madeColin and the others found the Society of Mary, that evangelical enthusiasm with its ownparticular character, the choice of Mary, has it any sense, any content, any value for theChurch, and through the Church, for our world today? If it has, then let us 'venture thefuture'! If it has not, then let us stop here! All right! I’ll go on!
Marie-Claude also stressed what is at stake for the laity. She is right. It is the very nameof our Association. But let us not forget that the first word of our name is 'Marist' evenbefore 'Laity': the Association of Marist Laity. I think that was an excellent observationmade by someone here present, the importance of the order in the title. Besides, personally, I prefer to speak about religious and laity, religious and associated Christians, religious and lay partners (each of these different expressions has had its hour of glory), quite simply because in the matter at hand, it is not first of all the term 'lay' which describes us, butthe fact of being Christians in a Marist way. And so I would stress the implications notonly for lay Marists, but indeed for the whole Marist Family, the Society of Mary, theMarist Communion.
Finally, I was asked to look at the subject again from a theological perspective. And sothat will be the third section of this talk, although of course it is the most fundamental partthrowing light on and informing all the rest. So it is with reference to these three aspects- ecclesial, Marist and Gospel - that I approach my subject.
1. CHURCH: IN UNITY... being Marist in the Church
We place ourselves first in the Church, to which Marists belong. Marie-Claude writes:'If we are Marists, we are also and first of all members of the Church, by our baptismand by our belonging to Christ. It is a Church that sometimes makes us suffer, that irritates us, that often discourages us.' That is true. A Church whose image is for us -consciously or unconsciously, painfully transmitted (the pain being often in the one whotransmits as well as in the one who receives) - that of an archaic authoritarian institution, atribunal of prohibition, even a hierarchical army drawn up and ready for a re-conquest; somuch so that if one admits to being a Christian, a Catholic, one is often and too readilysuspected of rigidity, obscurantism, and even worse, of proselytism. And yet, that is avery archaic image in the light of the way the Church thinks of herself and her relationswith the world, since Vatican 11. Vatican 11 calls us to revise our way of understanding
Church. 'And so', continues Marie-Claude, 'It is a Church which we love, because inspite of its heaviness - and I would add in spite of our heaviness also - it has made Christknown to us, taught us how to know Him.' Correct. We are very ready to criticise theChurch, the Tradition she transmits; but - over and beyond all our bitternesses to some ex¬tent justified, but which are often the reflection of our own shadow - it is no mean thing tobe the barque which has enabled Christ to traverse 2000 years of history and to land how¬ever confusedly on our shore.
...BUT ALSO IN DIVERSITY
However, I come back to Marie-Claude’s 'first the Church' and there I position the second part of my title: In unity, yes, but also in diversity.
To be Marist is to make a choice'If we are Marist, we are first of all Church'. That is true in absolute terms. But formany of us, indeed for more and more of us, our belonging to the Church, our sense ofbelonging to the worldwide Church translates itself through our Marist adherence, orthrough a Marist project, and this belonging can only be a voluntary commitment, a freechoice to live an experience of fraternity among the members as much as it is an expression of our unique way of living the mission of Christ in the Church. It cannot but be soin our secularised society, that is to say a society that separates utterly the civic from thesacred, and in which we can rejoice because it allows us to assume fully the freedom towhich God calls us, a pluralist society offering a number of alternatives, a number of possible choices.
To be Marist is to belong to a body
We have progressed, and are still progressing, from a Christianity of tradition to a Christianity of choice, in relation to which the 'confraternities' (I am using the term as one ofthe first terms used by Colin: 'confraternity' rather that 'fraternity', 'Third Order', 'As¬sociation', 'Extended Community', or 'partnership', thus speaking in a more global, all-embracing manner), the confraternities as I was saying, are a way for Christians to commit themselves more fully. And it is a choice which, because it cannot be taken forgranted, needs to be confirmed, recognised in some way before it can be fully expressed.To begin with, there is a request addressed by certain Christians - us - to a religious Institute - the Society of Mary - which corresponds to the desire to be associated with thecharism and with the spirituality of that Institute. It is a request which needs to be givenan institutional form (the Association of Lay Marists is one, but it needs to be gone intomore thoroughly). Because to live by the Spirit - whether it be Marist or not - without asense or a possibility of belonging to a body (social, institutional...), excuse me, but that’sjust smoke in the air, a dream, and it also goes against what we are trying to announce:the Incarnation of the Son of God. You can see that I am already slipping into theology.But it is essential that the shape of what we want to live should correspond to the contentof what we wish to live.
To be Marist: space to be free
Now (and here’s where the diversity comes in) a religious congregation has always a wayof its own to be Church. There is a uniqueness of relationship between every religiouscongregation and the institutional Church, and that relationship is never simple, for congregations to some extent can escape the Roman centralisation. A congregation can bring a certain wind of freedom to the Church, and renew it from within. I remember what aMarist Father friend said some years ago when he was being interviewed for a Maristvideo. 'Finally, becoming a Marist, what did that bring you?' He replied: 'A certainform of freedom within the Church'. It wasn’t a shattering declaration - that is not theMarist way. But it was a very significant response. A form of freedom within the veryheart of the institution, a way of taking a stand, while being able to keep one’s distance.
To be Marist: a prophetic force
All the same, a religious congregation will always find itself in tension, in compromise,with the Church. Sometimes this will be lived as a malaise, complaining for example of alack of recognition, or of being the object of suspicion in the eyes of the hierarchicalChurch. But this way of singling oneself out is first of all its greatest strength, itsprophetic strength which has passed through the care for humanity, which in the beginningwas solely seen to by the religious institutions (and many were founded in past centuries tosee to these humanitarian needs) But today, the social services of education and charity,previously entrusted to men and women religious, are undertaken in large part by civilsociety. Even if they are not totally seen to by the state, that is all the same a precious ex¬ample of secularisation. Having said that, the social needs which led to the foundation ofmany congregations, have been passed on to other hands.
To be Marist: a spiritual anchorage
The other element which led to the foundation of new congregations is the spiritual experience. Has that element been effectively passed on? By Christians in general? By Marists in particular? The Christian life is certainly a minority way of life in a society that issecularised and indifferent. Colin was not unaware of this, founding his society at thevery moment of secularisation, in response to secularisation. Once again, it was not ashattering response, but a hidden presence, that of Mary, which seemed to him the bestpossible response to that secularisation. But it was a response that went way beyond beinga politically correct attitude. It was in fact a fundamentally Christian attitude. Mary, thepath to incarnation chosen by God. There’s where theology pokes its nose in again! (buthow could it not?) Mary, God’s way of linking with us, of being in total solidarity withus. Since Colin’s time, society has in fact only stepped up the process of secularisation(which began with the Renaissance and has only strengthened since then) Today, whatcan we say? This society, so happily secularised, but by that very fact totally indifferentto the minority Christian life, is finding itself more and more in the grip of an anarchicthirst for spirituality. So the great urgency today, might it not be the taking on of thespiritual animation of society?
To be Marist: a possible new beginning
That the Society of Mary is in tension with the Church is obvious. When Colin expressesthe desire to 'begin a new Church', is that not taking issue with the Church of his timeand his place? Or if not confrontational, at least prophetic, with that clear vision whichcan read the signs of the times? Is he not feeling a need that is not satisfied with the traditional forms which characterise the Church of his time?. And that need is therefore lesslinked with social usefulness than with a certain way of being Church, Mary’s way. Aspiritual experience. I don't need to go over all the characteristics: many of you knowthem by heart - discretion, simplicity, service. The question is, this way of being which isnot linked to any particular work but which can permeate all work, is it still relevanttoday?
MARIST COMMUNION: IN DIVERSITY, YES religious/lay
The Church is surely everyone’s business. Everyone is called to holiness. There is onebasic vocation, one basic mission. But God does not speak to us 'in general'. God operates through the medium of persons, of groups, of people called and chosen, as he calledthe disciples and chose the Twelve. From among 'everyone' some have a particularvocation, a particular mission which is for the benefit of all. And hence the distinctionclerical/lay. Now the history of the Church shows that in different ways we assist in theemerging of a third pole. A religious congregation takes up from that emergence. Religious by their very nature, challenge that distinction clerical/lay. Each one takes on theirMarist membership in their own way, in their different states of life, in each one’s own in¬dividual way and individual contribution. We would all agree that the distinction is necessary so that the relationship be fruitful. However, if that distinction becomes too set,there is the ultimate risk of a structure that is hardened into a two-pronged rigidity makingfor a clerical Church. Now, it seems to me that Marists are religious, brothers andsisters, before being priests, clerics, by the very fact of pronouncing their vows beforetheir ordination. As for the laity, they would like to have available to them - whilerespecting their particular vocation - all the riches of the Christian tradition. A state oflife is not enough to determine a spirituality. There is certainly a link between the wayone lives and one’s experience of God, but this latter would always be first and fundamental for a Christian, the former being only the fruit and as it were the confirmation of thatexperience. Besides, respect for identity shows itself more on the level of mutual recognition that of definitions. In any association between religious and laity, the ideal is an openrecognition of different ways of incarnating the same spirit for the spiritual enriching ofeach. In the end, we perhaps need to stop talking about 'laity', not to make for confusionbut because it is not - or is not any longer - a fruitful distinction. As a means of differentiating, it is really of secondary importance in today’s world. It seems to me that thedebate between religious and lay is no longer relevant for a vision of the future. It madesense in a society whose reference point was still largely Catholic. That is no longer so,and the debate it seems to me has moved to other frontiers. There are other Marist urgencies. What I mean is that the urgency is no longer what the place of the laity may be inthe Church, but rather what Christians have to say to the world, the first question being aconsequence of the second.
...ALSO IN UNITY
Marist Communion
That’s why, as you will have gathered, I prefer to speak of 'Marist communion', groupsof Christians determined to live their mission as Christians in the world, and to live it in acertain way. Others choose to live this mission through the life they have chosen, or whichhas been handed down to them, in the married or celibate state. All of us have to run thegauntlet of the great human questions of sexuality, money, freedom. Those who live incommunity, religious, make their own particular response to this in their vows of chastity,poverty and obedience, which are proper to their way of life. Married or celibate Chris¬tians respond in a different way, which is also proper to their way of life. But the fundamental questions are the same. Their fundamental characteristic is that they are humanquestions.
Stressing unity, as I am doing, means running the risk of being misunderstood. But it is arisk I am prepared to take. Our usual way of thinking, generally binary and exclusive,with its 'either...or, or 'nothing else will do', functions rather well. And to insist on thedistinction 'religious/lay' doubtless gives a certain security as it is a model that has opera¬ted for decades if not centuries. But I have my doubts about its relevance today forproclaiming the Gospel to a largely non-Christian world, and even more so a non-Catholicworld, which is very remote from - even a total stranger to - our subtle distinctions whicheven in the best of contexts are of interest only to us. What seems to me of primary im¬portance, and what we need to stress, is therefore the unity of common membership. Thatis the originality of a Society linked to a religious congregation which by definitionstresses the aspect of fraternity rather than hierarchy, which, even if it is not totally absent(particularly in a congregation of priests) is not however of paramount importance. And ifthat were not the tendency, we should have to try to turn it around.
returning to the sources
Father Colin was fired with a project of world-wide, not to say totalitarian, dimensions, (Re¬member his 'the whole world Marist') anchored in the firm footing of the unique spirituallife of the congregations of priests, brothers, sisters and associations of married people(the celibate state having little recognition at the time). Clerics and laity, religious or not,if they are Christians, have a duty to be concerned with all aspects of the Church and ofthe worship given to God, as well as with all aspects of the world and its affairs, for theyare linked in one mission, in one 'work' which pervades all others: the evangelisation ofthe world. That is what Vatican II calls the mission of the people of God.
Now I am stressing Marist history, Marist tradition. Father Mayet, one of his near con¬temporaries, says of Colin: 'He alone had the original idea (which came from on high) ofthis Third Order (confraternitas) at the same time as God inspired the foundation of theSociety of Mary. The two things were parallel in spirit, something which is rarely seen inthe Church.'
'Colin saw the confraternity - what he called the Third Order - as an integral part of theSociety, with the same spirituality, the same spirit and the same mission', writes FrankMcKay and quotes Colin: '’This idea of the Third Order has always concerned me great¬ly; it was one of the first ideas of the Society, and I have held on to those ideas.â€â€™Father Cozon adds: 'The Third Order is not meant to spread out, as it were, around us like aplanet around its constellation, but to spread out within the Church. It is not therefore avaluable instrument for helping the Society of Mary by interesting the 'pious faithful†init, it is rather a means of extending its action in the world.'
Naturally, Coin distinguished the members of the Congregation of Marist Fathers from hemembers of the Third Order, but he regarded these latter as constitutive members of thecongregation, something which is rare in the Church. To inherit this, is to be heir to thewhole Colinian heritage. Where no strong Marist lay movement exists alongside the otherbranches, the Society does not fully exist, like a defective tree which is missing one of itsfruit-bearing branches. The Marist laity is therefore a manifestation of the internaldynamism of the Society of Mary. It is coextensive with it. But the adjective 'co¬extensive' works both ways. And in our day, there is perhaps as much need to look at thevigour of the religious branches as at that of the lay movement. So what are, and whatcan be, the implications of this co-extent? Maybe you see better now why I speak of'Marist communion'! Maybe that is the future which we have to risk, to venture!If I refer to Father Colin in order to define the spirituality which 'we think still has somethingto bring to the Church and to the world of today and tomorrow' (I quote Marie-Claudeagain) it is because this Marist spirit cannot exist without reference to Colin’s intuition andto the living tradition of the Society. Every spirituality goes back to an institution, to afounder and to a history. There is no spirit without a body, no incarnation without takingthe body, and therefore institutional issues, seriously.
THE IMAGE OF CHRIST: with reference to the Tradition of the Church.
These categories of unity and diversity, of unity in diversity and diversity in unity, are tomy mind fundamental to the question. I did not highlight them by chance, but in as muchas the relationship of unity - which is not fusion - and of diversity - which is not division -is inscribed in Christ Himself. I am trying to think through what I live in my understanding of Christ and what I have received from tradition.
reference to Chalcedon
Now the very person of Christ integrates this tension between two natures, not the clericaland the lay, but the human and the divine. It was the Council of Chalcedon, in 451,which endeavoured to understand Christ in this way. That may seem to you very remoteand intellectual. But don’t let us be deceived. There is a considerable amount at stake. Ifit is a question of affirming the double nature of Christ, the divine and the human, it is be¬cause without that there is no salvation (and by salvation I mean the fullness of life towhich every human person aspires) If Jesus Christ is not God, he has no power to saveme. And if Jesus Christ is not man, then he does not even come near to what I really am,and neither can he save what I really am. It is seriously paradoxical to think of two natures in one sole person. So Christ is the perfect sign of communion, that is of unity (withhis father) in diversity (distinct from his Father). The perfect sign of the communion ofthe divine with the human.
Marist sources
On the other hand, what I am trying to understand about Christ, and what tradition teachesme, I allow myself to interpret by the way I live, to understand what I live in this light.That is what is called a living tradition. Bordering perhaps sometimes on impiety. But FrColin seems to authorise this in his own case when he says 'to begin a new Church. I amnot using that expression in the literal sense, that would be blasphemous'. At the sametime, he goes on 'but in one sense, yes, we must begin a new Church.'
And perhaps it is not so blasphemous if we reflect that the Church to which the Society ofMary belongs, is a constitutive part of the Body of Christ. So, if there is any point inthinking of the relation between unity and diversity in Christ, that means that the sameconnection may be thought of in relation to the Church. Having said that, to think aboutthe relationship between associated religious and laity - because once again what definesus is not that we are religious or lay, but that we are Christians or not - to think of thisconnection in terms of belonging to one same body, to insist on its unity, seems to me tobe more correct theologically and ecclesialogically, than to think in terms of succession orrelay, as one sometimes hears. And from that starting point, what kind of 'new Church'can we begin together? I have tried to justify my point of view, my present view ofthings. You are not obliged to share it.
WITH MARY’S SUPPORT: with reference to the Marist tradition
Obviously, there is one enormous objection which would seem to contradict the very titleof our approach - 'Venturing a Future'. And that is the predicted death of all religiousbodies. Excuse the brutality of the language. Twice in her letter, Marie-Claude makesdiscreet mention of 'desert', and suggests a biblical support in the journey of thepatriarchs or the exodus journey. I would like to be more radical and propose to you amore traditional Marist image of the end of time, and the cross as theological support,even if that is not a very diplomatic proposal.
reference to 'the end of time'
In line with Marist tradition, I have already studded my text with Marist references, thoseclassical Marist images and references, because they mark me also as a Christian. It’s mytradition. It’s difficult for me to abstract them or to separate them from the others. ButI’d like to return to that most ancient of Marist references, that foundation reference, theword spoken by Mary, not in the first place to Colin, but taken up by him as a foundingword and a signpost.
'I was the support of the Church at its beginnings, and I will be also at the end of time'.The end of time! In every age, people have often had the impression of living more or lessan end-time. That was doubtless the case with Colin, and is the reason why the Congregation is counted among those congregations deemed 'apocalyptic'. Like Colin, somepeople feel that they are living an apocalypse through the non-renewal of religious congregations. From a human point of view, it is hard to see how they are going to survive,at least in the west. Is it indeed the Apocalypse? I have no idea. Except that the normalconnotation of apocalypse as the 'end of time' was originally understood as 'manifestation', 'sign'...An end of time which could then be a sign of that future that we arecapable of venturing, of creating.
But isn’t it now or never, time for Marists to listen afresh to that prophecy of Mary whichpromises us her support, provided we are authentically Church, that is to say fully members of the Body of Christ, differing in our states of life yet united in one body, throughwhich a spirituality is expressed.
IN VIEW OF OUR SIMILARITY: with reference to the Gospel
It is because of that tension that exists between what differentiates us and what unites us,that we exist as a living Church. The Council of Chalcedon anchors that tension in thevery person of Christ, but Paul had already highlighted it with reference to the body ofChrist which is the Church.
the Pauline reference: 'the members of the body'
'As with the human body, which is a unity although it has many parts - all the parts of thebody, though many, still making up one body - so it is with Christ...Now Christ’s body iyourselves, each of you with a part to play in the whole.' (1 Cor. 12) And our smallness,our weakness, should not discourage us: 'What is more, it is precisely the parts of thebody that seem to be the weakest which are the indispensable ones.' The part of the bodythat we constitute, in spite of its weakness - dare I say even because of its weakness? -shows without any doubt a facet of Christ which would not be revealed anywhere else inthe same way.
Our way of being discreet, attentive, of service, takes something from Mary, of course,but through Mary from Christ himself. And to speak about Christ through Mary is, inconcrete terms, to speak of the Incarnation. Forgive me the quasi-biological precision ofthat phrase, but in a certain way Christ had to 'pass through' Mary in order to take fleshand become human.
second Pauline reference: the body on the cross
Paul calls to mind that incarnation: 'He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming as human beings are, and being in every way like a human being, he was humbleryet, even to accepting death, death on a cross.' (Phil.2) That death on a cross, I wouldlink with our present 'end of time'. And the support promised by Mary, that supportwhich we have difficulty in seeing from a human perspective where it might come from, Iwould link with the resurrection which came about not in spite of his death - like aparenthesis to his death - but because of his death. Paul goes on to stress that it is BE¬CAUSE he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, death on a cross, that Godhas highly exalted him.
So with all the humility of which we are capable, that is with all that we carry of the hu¬man condition (humanity and humility are linked by a common root - humus - of theearth, earthy; humour is also from the same root), with that humility which we know willprobably lead to a kind of disappearance, a kind of death, like that of the grain in theearth, then yes, let us venture the future! with our only viaticum the hope of the resurrected Christ.
(I could almost finish with an 'Amen', but that would risk a certain confusion!)
(Audio Available)
