Dave Fleming Seminar at University of Dayton
May 4, 2011
Carol Ramey--panelist
Please note: This presentation relies heavily on the article in Review for Religious, Volume 34, 1975/6. The Marianist Training Network received permission from the School of Divinity of St. Louis University to duplicate and I used a library copy for the talk.
The two presentations that preceded my remarks have laid out the facts of “prudence and forethought” (Gadiou and Delas) and the human ingenuity that contributed to the perseverance of the Society of Mary through many “ups and downs”. I hope to demonstrate that these events also speak to the durability of the charism and the action of the Holy Spirit in support of these two hundred years+ of Marianist life.
The topic I was asked to talk about today is how, at various points in their history, religious orders or groups organized around the vision of a founder will need to remember, reinterpret, and perhaps, reclaim the vision of the founder. In our case, how has the Marianist Family preserved the integrity of the manifestations of the charism given to Blessed William Joseph Chaminade and how might we today be challenged to insure that this institution will continue to draw from the wisdom and holiness of the founder and offer the gifts of the charism to those here now and those to come in the future?
We have just heard the historical details of the ways the Society expanded beyond France, excelled in the field of education, and responded to governmental, ecclesial, and cultural forces that often threatened the very existence or essence of the order. We have heard about the good times across the globe—thousands of brothers in hundreds of schools educating generations of people. We have a sense of the challenges to continue ministries needed in these times with limited personnel and declining financial resources.
What can we learn from the history? How can we tap into the energy of the charism today?
In 1975, the journal Review for Religious, published an article written by Bro. Ray Fitz and Bro. Lawrence Cada. The title of the article was “The Recovery of Religious Life.” They had been conducting workshops and retreats for many religious around renewal and revitalization of the orders. They often partnered in these workshops with Fr. Norb Brockman, SM; Sr. Gertrude Foley, SC; Bro. Tom Giardino, SM; and Sr. Carol Lichtenberg, SND.
From their experience of working with many congregations, their study of religious orders over the centuries, and their knowledge of modern management and organizational development, they saw a historical and sociological model of typical eras and cycles of growth and decline in the membership and the consequently the works of the orders. The article laid out the models and was later expanded into a book, “Shaping the Coming Age of Religious Life.” They explored religious life (as the book’s jacket stated) “to provide a horizon for understanding upheavals in religious communities of the time and developed insight into the vitality processes” that could be employed to revitalize the congregations.
The model, even as the authors admit, does have limitations and some over simplifications. For example: the Spirit, phases on different tracks in different locales, world crises, religious life not just sociological—strength of vows and belief in transformation power of God, sustained development rare. However, I have used the model to frame the course Bro. Larry and I use to teach the novices about Marianist history. The characteristics of each of the period of growth or decline do line up pretty consistently with the overarching themes at play through the generations of Marianist life.
Fitz and Cada defined five periods: foundation, expansion, stabilization, breakdown, and transition. The periods could be graphically represented as a bell curve. Explain a bit
I assume you have spent a good deal of time looking at the foundation period. You will recognize the elements of the foundation period with the actual events you’ve studied.
The founder undergoes a radically transforming experience after a vision or dream is received. He or she feels compelled to critique the present, appropriate certain elements from the past, and image a future which then is the basis for novel strategies. Sounding familiar?
The vision is shared, others join with the founder to respond to the call to holiness and together they create arrangements for living and working that will make the vision a reality.
Cohesion, identity, and authority all flow from the wisdom of the founder. There is a high degree of enthusiasm and excitement around the new enterprise and a strong sense of the presence of Christ in everything.
The period is not without a crisis. The struggle is generally around a sense of legitimacy within the Church and concerns for leadership once the founder dies. Will this new group of religious be recognized and affirmed in their call? For the Society of Mary, the Decree of Praise that was issued by the Pope in 1839 gave them legitimacy, but the formal process of approbation wasn’t completed until almost 40 years after Chaminade’s death.
Since Blessed Chaminade lived such a long life, the foundation period for the brothers lasted much longer than the typical 10 to 20 years of most orders.
The expansion period sees growth in both numbers of members and locations in which they serve. The founder is usually well remembered as early members recount stories of the foundation. In our case, because of the turmoil of the last years of Chaminade’s life during which he was basically set aside and generally, but wrongly, considered to be senile, the usual inspiration of the founder did not carry over into these years.
During this period, orders usually institutionalize aspects of the founding charism—procedures, customs, and rules are formalized. We see this in our history in the efforts to protect core elements of Marianist life—the mixed composition of the membership and the vow of stability—both creations of Chaminade—they may have rejected him, but not his insight and creativity and organizational wisdom.
There is generally a strengthening of the sense of mission and increased expertise at the core ministry. As the adult lay communities had been totally suppressed well before Chaminade’s death, the Marianists were functioning as a teaching order, primarily in elementary schools. A pedagogy that included excellent academic preparation, solid formation in the faith, and an experience of what is called “family spirit”—the warmth and support of a caring community—had developed. Father Lalanne’s innovations in instructional methods were known throughout France and the Marianists operated one of the most prestigious schools in Paris—Collège Stanislas.
Growth begets more growth and membership increases rapidly. As numbers rise and geographical placements increase, there are problems with cohesion and the need for more complicated organization structure arises. Without the direction of the founder, ways must be found to maintain the vigor around the charism. The Society of Mary was successful at doing this—mostly, good, capable leaders were chosen and the conviction around the centrality of mission being Mary’s mission continued and grew deeper.
The middle period—the stabilization period—is marked by a settling in—doing what the order is good at doing. A climate of “success” permeates the membership. Goals and roles are unambiguous. There is little innovation or adaptation. Formation is around conformity to well established patterns of community life and works. Those who question the norms and customs are often rebuked or silenced. While membership grows, geographical expansion does not increase.
Activism—over-absorption into the works—runs the risk of members losing sight of the interior life; this is common to this stage. A blandness can set in. There is little reference to the founder—he or she is an historical figure, not a motivational presence.
The Marianist story lines up with some, but not all, of these factors. There was a good deal of geographical expansion with the Society of Mary. Father Simler and his biography of the founder—written while he was held prisoner in a house filled with archival material— was a major exception to the distinctive features of a stabilization period. He didn’t just reacquaint members with the founder—he introduced him and his vision to most for the first time! Recovering the history of the Bordeaux Sodality, the foundation of the Daughters of Mary, and the purpose of the religious orders to sustain these lay communities was an eye-opening revelation to most. After his book was published, Sodalities within the schools became standard. His biography included information about Chaminade’s closest collaborators, Adèle de Batz de Trenquelléon and Marie Thérèse de Lamourous—women many of the men in the Society knew little if anything about. The passion for the poor that Adèle exhibited and her unbelievable abilities for someone so young came to light. Her deep faith despite poor health and obstacles as well as her organizational capacities are two of the most evident gifts she brought to the Marianist enterprise.
Marie Thérèse was rightly positioned by Simler as a person intricately involved with the Bordeaux Sodality through her leadership of the Women’s section. It was clear from Simlers’ research and writing that she was a valued friend and counselor to Chaminade—particularly around financial and legal matters. Her commitment to restoring the dignity of Bordeaux’s prostitutes by giving them marketable skills and a faith in God and in themselves has inspired many involved in social service. Father Simler reclaimed our heritage—not only by writing, but by his efforts to reunite the FMI and SM after 40 years of alienation. He restored the reputation of one of the negotiators around mixed composition, and he united the brothers across the miles with the Messenger magazine and with the concept of filial piety.
Father Ferree was a major player in not just remembering the founder, but being instrumental in reclaiming much of Chaminade’s organization wisdom and reinterpreting it for a culture well versed in management and organizational theories—Ferree promoted the Three Offices and the System of Virtues and detailed the interrelationships of all the branches. His reinterpretation included an emphasis on social justice—not a concept in Chaminade’s time. Ferree utilized Chaminade call to “universal mission” to promote work around human development. He inspired a significant number of men to work at revivifying the lay branch of the Marianist Family. He instigated study clubs in which brothers in initial formation were exposed to primary documents that were being translated from French into English. And, the men who were attending the seminary in Fribourg, Switzerland were writing their licentiate papers on Marianist spirituality and Mariology and the foundational principles for community life.
So, several exceptions to the norm can be documented during this phase, but it was true that education became THE ministry because Marianists were so good at it and there was pressure to conform to deeply engrained expressions of religious life and to be happy with that life!
Everything about the breakdown period from the model happened to the Society. Typically, structures and belief systems are dismantled, stress and doubt builds up—resulting in departures of significant numbers of members. Authority and decision making structures are challenged. A polarization develops between those who want to “stay the course” by reinforcing tried and true ministries and styles of community living and those who want not just adaptation, but real change. Much of this happened within the Society.
The most dramatic instance of polarization occurred with the breakaway of brothers at Chaminade High School in Mineola, NY—eventually becoming a separate Province. The drop in membership was severe. But the Society did some thoughtful and successful things to keep the ship from sinking—prudently and wisely undertaking actions to not just ride out the storm, but to build a future for after the storm!
The transition period—the time when the end comes, or a mode of minimal survival is entered, or a revitalization process has successes—is, in some people’s judgment—still active. We might not be in a new round of phases, beginning with a new foundational period (as other older institutes have done), but we do know the end of the SM is not on the horizon; there are indicators that the Society is not just surviving; efforts at revitalization are on-going and can be traced through the very difficult unification of the U.S. provinces, in the content and tone of the circulars of the Superior Generals, targeted retreats around reconnecting to the founders and the charism; through the Strategic Planning process and Vision 2020. Hard choices are coming, but the climate seems to be hopeful that right and informed choices will be made to develop transformative responses to world needs. There have been focused efforts to renew prayer life, growth in faith, and centeredness in Christ.
The Founders—and we now typically talk about three founders—have all had new major biographies written by scholars such as Father Vincent Gizard, Father Joseph Stefanelli, and Father Eduardo Benlloch. These inspire today’s Society toward vision infused with pragmatism; with a strong commitment to serving youth and the poor, and with a reliance on God that will carry us through to a new foundation period in which the signs of the times are clearly understood and the ministries and community life are constructed in ways to meet the needs of the times.
The founders’ trust in lay people and their methods for recruiting them to communities in permanent mission are being revisited as the future will depend on passing the torches in many institutional apostolates as well as intensifying collaboration throughout the Marianist Family. Young people are coming out of this university committing to on-going formation and participation in tradition aspects of Marianist life such as community, but are investing their time and energies into ministries that are new to many of us—like urban gardening to feed the hungry! Who knows what they will do with technology and new forms of transportation that increase mobility!
Blessed Chaminade’s missionary spirit is alive and well in many places. While European statistics are dismal and U.S. vocations don’t match the numbers who are passing away (although, we have eight very good guys in formation) and we see very positive numbers in India and Africa in addition to new sparks of Marianist life in locales such as Haiti and the Philippines.
So, to conclude, many of the major events in our history—as great or as awful as they were—are mostly normal. The fact that other orders over time have gone through these stages and come out of transitions to be better and stronger provides a witness to what is possible. Our founders’ lives still matter to us; the charism with its dynamics for apostolic boldness alongside a practical and inspirational way to be united to Christ through His Mother is still needed and viable. The pillars of faith, community, Mary, inclusivity and mission are as relevant today as in Chaminade’s time.
Now, I’m sounding like a cheer leader. I’ll stop.
Any comments or questions?
No comments:
Post a Comment