Monastic Life: A Continuous Conversion
A reflection on monasteries now and in the future
Pius-Ramón Tragan OSB
Monk of Montserrat, Spain
The first part of a Conference given at the Meeting of Abbots and Abbesses of the Ibrian Peninsula in August 2001
Introduction
There is nothing new about envisaging monastic life as a continuous conversion. St. Benedict sees the life of a monk as a continual spiritual progress, requiring a specific kind of life, a conversatio morum, a vital dynamism which leads to union with Christ. Conversion is a fundamental openness which is essential to faith, both in the Old Testament and in Christian life. The Old Testament Prophets proclaimed Israelis conversion (Is. 21 :12; 45:22; Jer. 12:13;35:15), and the Gospel message begins with a call to metanoia (Mk. 1 :15). St. Paul describes Christian life as a continuous transformation, an ongoing assimilation to the image of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). In a special and radical way, the life of each monk or nun is a progressive transformation begun at baptism, a continual journey away from the old man into the new man, an ongoing process of spiritual maturation under the action of the Spirit.
There is a copious literature on this way of perfection in Benedictine spirituality. Commentaries on the Rule and studies of individual texts present the monastic sources and traditions upon which St Benedict relies. Numerous works of edification stress the necessity for fidelity and growth in monastic life, describing both the difficulties to be en
countered and the positive results to be reaped from monastic life.
The theme of this colloquium is not directly concerned with conversion as a spiritual attitude or with particular personal or communitarian ethical virtues. Without excluding these radically Christian aspects, the word, in our context, evokes a more general attitude of adaptation, changing direction, a more or less profound alteration of life-style. Above all, it suggests a radical rethink and a re-evaluation of a monastic mind-set which, if usually stable, is never entirely sacrosanct. Conversion means that we can never settle down permanently, nor cling to a semper idem precluding all interpretation of the past and stifling the life impulse which is never static. In other words, 'conversion' means that attitude of openness which is necessary to articulate the past to the present in a balanced way, breathing life into the tradition in new socio-religious circumstances, and bringing the inner essence of Benedictine monasticism to bear on new socio-cultural situations. This process of conversion, which is analogous to the interior metanoia of the soul, necessitates a double movement. There must be a return to the original ideal, the archetype, to the most authentic sources, interpreting them with discrimination so as to distinguish the essential from the secondary, the tradition from traditions. Then it is also necessary to know and to evaluate correctly the features of the anthropological and cultural context in which we live. Not everything around us is negative. Despite the imbalance of a relativising pluralism in reaction against the tendency towards globalisation, values which cannot be ignored are emerging. The deep needs of human beings are still there, in spite of the void created by loss of ideals and a mediocre Christian formation. Although self-interest and the eager pursuit of purely material goals and fulfillment attract western society, a deep feeling of dissatisfaction remains. The quest for a truly human and religious meaning to life, though sometimes inexplicit, persists as something very real.
Concentrating on the relationship between monastic life and the situation at a specific moment of history, this colloquium takes up once again a problem which has resurfaced again and again down the centuries, and acutely once more today. Witness the considerable number of recent publications on the relationship between monasticism and contemporary society. Reflecting on the mutual interaction between monasteries and their environment leads us inevitably to wonder what steps must be taken if monasteries are to remain as a living ferment in society, without becoming indistinguishable from it. In this sense also, monastic life is a continuous conversion.
I am aware of the difficulties of this topic. It would be both presumptuous and pointless to propose instant practical solutions, as our monasteries live in very different situations, belong to different Benedictine congregations, and have each their own history and traditions. Moreover - whatever the rights or wrongs of it - Benedictine monasteries of men and women are rather different from each other, both in legislation and the activities of their members. Accordingly, I shall confine myself to some fundamentals applicable to all 'conversion' or 'adaptation' of monasticism in two papers. The first, in the presence of abbots and abbesses together, will be devoted to twin topics:
1 ) Benedictine vocation, community, Church, world;
2) 'from a Gnostic-type spirituality to a Wisdom life-style'.
In the second phase of our reflection, addressed more immediately to monasteries of women, I will deal with two more concrete subjects:
1 ) Cloistered nuns ?
2) Constituenda est dominici schola servitii (Prol. 45).
At all events, the four topics converge on the dynamic quality of the
monastic life as continuous conversion.
1. The Benedictine Vocation: Community, Church, World.
Difficulties and advantages of a constantly renewed tension.
Benedictine life does not correspond to the anchoretic ideal of Antony, nor to that of the Stylites of Egypt, nor to life in the desert monasteries of Nitria. It is different to the community life proposed by Pachomius, and nearer to the pre-benedictine monastic life of Italy. The Rule of St Benedict was not written for desert dwellers. He was born and lived in a geographical environment which was fertile, naturally favourable, and apt for cultivation and harvest-gathering. The monastic work of St Benedict's disciples, whether agricultural or artistic, was productive and served, not merely to supply the community, but also for sale to people of the locality. Benedictine monasticism represents a notable 'conversion' in comparison to the life-style of Eastern monks or other kinds of monks whom the author of the Rule would have known in his own region. St Benedict is in some degree an innovator, even by reference to his probable immediate source, the Rule of the Master. What is more, St Benedict sees the monastery in the context of a diocese, under the authority of a bishop, belonging to a local church. In fact, the monastery is a little church within the Church. The monastery could be defined as a domestic church modelled on the Apostolic Church.
With this as point of departure, it follows that the relation community : Church is not just a practical issue to be settled by the decision of the abbot or the monks. In practice, the pastoral activity of the monks cannot be on the fringe of the life of the Church, limited to
giving the example of a silent community. Monastic life must be present and active within the Church. This is not a matter of a choice, made after reflection or according to the ideology of this or that monastery. The prophetic voice of monasticism must ring out and let its word be heard clearly beyond the walls of the monastery. We are face to face here with an issue which is highly theological and, specifically, a matter of ecclesiology.
Of its very nature, the Church is a missionary community. As Christians, monks, nuns, and communities are called upon to give, not just the witness of their faith mediated through a lifestyle of penance and prayer, however exemplary. They must spread the Gospel message positively and actively. The ecclesial character of every monastery entails a duty for the community to engage in active apostolate. The New Testament leaves no room for doubt on this point. Apostolic activity is a sacred service. St Paul speaks of it as a cultic activity, of which he is the liturgical minister (Rom. 15:16). Celibacy for the Kingdom is seen in the Gospel as complete availability for the service of the word, without excluding the value of eschatological waiting. The active spreading of the Gospel message is a duty for every baptised person, and especially for each church, and each Christian community. This is how St Benedict's biographer, St Gregory the Great, understood it in The Dialogues. Every benedictine community, like the wider Church, has two basic dimensions: one centripetal, forming one body, seeking the unity of all its members and bringing together all its different charisms for the common good; and the other centrifugal, spreading the word further than the monastery enclosure. 'How can they believe unless they hear preaching? How can they hear preaching unless somebody proclaims it? And how shall they proclaim it unless they are sent? As it is written "How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim peace" ' (Rom. 10:14-15).
It is appropriate to recall that the Rule of St Benedict must be understood in the light of the Gospel, and not the Gospel in the light of the Rule. This is clear from Ch.73 of the Rule. Monastic life and activity must be directed within an ecclesial context. A community is not just a single member of the Universal Church; it is in itself a little church, a domestic church in which there will not fail to be members graced with diverse charisms. Each monastery has the rights and duties belonging to every believing community. First of all, to give living witness of unity, togetherness, love. But, equally, the service and spreading of the word is the concern of monks and nuns.
Every community has to decide how to implement these principles but not question the principles themselves. The 'hew' depends on many factors. Each monastery has to gauge its own situation and opportunities. There has to be balance and continuous conversion. But our legislation and customs, especially those concerning hospitality, do have to be rethought in the light of the Gospel missionary mandate. A practical instance: the RB prescription that Holy Scripture should be read to the guests. Receiving guests nowadays is not just a question of edifying them, as the Rule envisages, but also of instructing, even catechising them. It is no longer just a ritual or a liturgical ceremony. Opening Scripture to people now in a meaningful way, according to the best recent exegesis and rules of interpretation, requires a solid and ongoing formation which equips monks and nuns to give a competent account of their faith and to pass on a Christian message which is not merely a repetition of dogmas and spiritual recipes, or personal anecdotes, but an unveiling of the historical, theological, and still vibrant meaning of Scripture today, the foundation of our faith.
Considering the ecclesial and missionary dimension of monasteries in the light of our tradition, it seems to me more necessary than ever to concentrate our efforts on study and the acquisition of knowledge which will allow monks and nuns to contribute to the mission of the Church a dimension of reflection and wisdom, a quality and depth of thought and speech. This means fostering theological knowledge rather than engaging more directly in explicitly pastoral activities and organisations.
I am well aware that assigning monks and nuns to do studies requires, not only that they have the necessary ability, but also financial means which may be in short supply. My concern is to stress the priorities which should guide communities in relation to the Church
to be centres of culture and spirituality. With this in view, they must give their younger members a solid formation which is not limited to witnessing by prayer and penance. In order for monasteries, and prayer itself, to be solidly based and truly religious, people today cannot survive on spiritual experiences alone. They have to be able to give a well-founded and rigorous account of their faith to themselves and to our contemporaries. They must, therefore, be conversant with the theological sciences and with contemporary socio-religious thought. For a monastic community now, investing in the future means, above all, requiring of candidates the ascesis of study as much as the ascesis of the life. They must be trained, not in the privilege, but in the responsibility of knowledge, avoiding the situation where monks and nuns spend their time in occupations which absorb and fragment their lives. Such activities will leave them empty handed in later life. Unless they are saints - and not everyone is - they will feel frustrated, which is a not infrequent experience in monasteries.
It is not a matter of promoting the studies of the more talented, as if it were a privilege. Instead we must encourage a new attitude both in the students and in the community at large. We must instil a greater appreciation of culture and an awareness of the value and the responsibility of knowledge. Permanent ongoing formation should be available to all, and the young should be taught the seriousness, patience, hard work, and above all, humility required for study. These should be the qualities of the Benedictine labors in an era too given to quick superficial living. This should be the challenge issued by the community to candidates for monastic life: ora et labora, discerning from the outset the talents of postulants and directing them according to their gifts and capacities towards the labor in which each can find fulfilment and, at the same time, serve others.
It seems to me that the relationship between our monasteries and the Church, in practice the pastoral activity of monasteries, should be realised in this perspective. We can be centres of theological and human culture in an age when there is, and there will be in the future, a lack of serious and solid Christian and humanist culture in our churches; centres, too, of excellence in artisanship and art. Nobody can be unaware that the socio-cultural environment in which we live is controlled by technology, profit, output, speed, instant gratification, and by the financial imperatives that rule the world. A rather bleak picture, not just from a Christian point of view, but in respect of studies in the arts, in history, and in the philosophical and theological disciplines generally, including the values of good artisanship. I would go so far as to say that it is incumbent on monasteries to form elite communities - not in any exclusivist or negative sense, but, as in the monasteries of the Middle Ages immersed in a society which had lost contact with classical learning - an elite which could pass on and make known in our own culture the human and religious values which form the basis of neighbourliness, peace, hope, progress, perfection, the foundation for a rediscovery of a deep and lasting value system, giving a real meaning to human life in the light of the Gospel.
This is not a new idea. It is simply a matter of applying the principle of conversion wherever our monasteries are looking too much to the past and have no vision for the future, to the extent that they become 'Martha' communities, where the daily round leaves no time for seeking and deepening the meaning of the Word. It is essential that Benedictine communities be seen to have a prophetic dimension which can anticipate and give direction to the insecure and perilous evolution of our contemporary society. It is not by simply repeating the ideas and style of the past that living impetus can be given to the present and future life of the Church, and of monks in particular. The valid core and substance of our tradition, duly cleansed, must be introduced into new forms of life which need to be revitalised rather than ignored, condemned, or destroyed. This will require a process of adaptation and conversion, making us think again about where we are coming from and what we are doing. It will imply a recog nition of the degree of optimism in our lives and how much creativity underlies our projects. This is our positive contribution in media
Ecclesiae.
The strong ecclesial sense of monasticism leads us to consider the second part of our subject: the relation between community and world.
b) The Community and the World.
The word 'world' dues not automatically have a negative meaning. Kosmos sometimes has a positive meaning, even in St John's gospel. God so loved the world that he sent his Son to save it (3:18). The world is the space where God carries out his work of redemption. In the following reflection, the 'world' is the sociological context in which our monasteries live. It is pluralist, diverse in its social and religious leanings. Good and bad are so mixed that it is difficult to either approve or condemn. God loves our world and wishes to save it, and this world is the place where the Church sojourns and works out its salvation.
The question which concerns us is the relationship between the monastic community and the world around it, What attitude should a monastic community adopt towards the world which surrounds it?
Any human or religious group can decide on its attitude in relation to its environment. This could be self-defence, isolation, even flight; or, on the contrary, an attitude of attentiveness, availability, openness, with the intention of exercising an efficacious influence in a wide social context.
In monastic history, both tendencies are to be found, with all the possible gradations between the two. It is common knowledge that, down the ages, the monastic paradigm has evoked many versions of the gift of self for the sake of the Kingdom. Within the same monastic tradition, the way of following Christ has taken very varied forms: the solitude of hermits and the cenobitical life, the heights of contemplation and ardent apostolic activity, a poor and obscure life has become the seed of peace and social concord so that monasteries have become wellsprings of prosperity and civilization. Fidelity to the choral office has not precluded devotion to the arts and sciences which form the basis of culture. Isolation from the world has not impeded a monastic mission to educate the young and care for souls, and even to make foundations. Today the various national and international congregations mirror the diversity and plurality of the Benedictine Confederation.
In treating of this matter of relations between community and world, I shall confine myself to the monasteries of Latin Europe, Italy, Spain, and France which have many points in common, in comparison to the English, Austrian, North American, Korean or African monasteries with their varied contexts and traditions. To be quite clear about the remarks which follow: it is not a matter of suggesting practical advice or useful rules for resolving the tension between monastery and society. The aim is simply to draw attention to a few principles which should be taken into account when working towards decisions in the delicate area of relationships between community and world.
(i) We use the advantages of modern life: we cannot, implicitly or explicitly, condemn the world which has created them. From a sociological point of view, there is necessarily a relationship between a group and society, between the family unit and the social context. A reciprocal influence undoubtedly exists between a monastic community and the human, cultural, and religious ambiance where it is rooted. The aspirants who arrive at our monasteries were born and grew up in that world which is all around us. I will not try to describe their characteristics here, but it is obvious that they have ways of seeing things, attitudes of mind, whole world-views which are totally different to those of forty years ago.
A monastic community must respond positively to its environment, with that humanity, understanding, spiritual and intellectual wisdom which are typically Benedictine, so that the community is open and, in the best sense, profitable to one and all. As a community which follows Christ, it must show forth the welcoming, generous, and wholly benevolent face of God. It follows that what is done should be competent and capable of reaching and engaging with contemporary society. St Benedict presumes that his monks will be productive, that they will travel, know how to read and write, and be able to read, not just the Scriptures, but the writings of the Fathers as well. If we compare the formation of St Benedict's monks in the 5th and 6th century with the cultural level of our communities in the 21st century, we would have to admit that we are less well off.
(ii) Thinking about the relationship between community and world, we cannot avoid the analogy between that subject and another more personal and psychological question: the personal freedom of monks and nuns in relation to their community commitment. Just as in the relationship between the unity of the group and the ambient society, so the balance between individual and community must remain a matter of dynamic tension. On the one hand, there is the person with his or her gifts, qualities, initiative, and potential for growth and fulfilment. On the other hand, there is that individual's belonging and sharing in the life of a monastery, which implies compromise, renunciation and personal submission to the community's way of things. These two principles cannot be integrated by ready made rules and regulations. The tension between the two cannot be resolved by systematically emphasising, in the name of God and of monastic life, submission by the individual to the status quo as the ideal. One cannot subjugate candidates with the authority of an antique paterfamilias, forcing them to accept the values and bebaviour patterns of an idealised spirituality and outmoded past, even to the point of high-jacking their minds so that they come to believe that they freely accept a static notion of monastic life. This mentality, which still prevails in numerous monasteries and amongst many persons charged with formation, can drive serious and committed persons to leave monastic life. We must today take another path. A much more sensitive, sophisticated, respectful, and thoughtful form of direction is required, one which allows the candidate to develop in a balanced way, to grow in self knowledge, to change, and to lay solid foundations for the decision to consecrate himself or herself to the service of God, in imitation of Christ, in the midst of this or that particular Benedictine community. A monastery should be a place where each one's deepest wounds can be laid bare and healed, as the Rule says, rather than a place for the practice of specific observances which would serve as the barometer of a monk's fidelity and deep commitment.
If one is to achieve a genuine conversatio morum, there must be a dialogue which is fraternal, deep, intelligent, confident, and sensitive, and free of any pretension by the person in charge or any other monk to play the amateur psychologist or to act the master who imposes monastic theories and traditional observances. Those sort of formation criteria evoke, at the least, unconscious reactions in the candidate who feels that he or she is being categorised according to some sort of textbook typology. During the first years in the monastery the candidate will be seen as observant and obedient. Later on the deeper reality of that person's character will appear, having escaped the 'psychologists' and 'musters' who never gave the candidate a chance to reveal his or her true self in a constructive and honest dialogue.
I am not changing the subject when I underline the sort of relationship which should exist between the individual and the community, the person and the monastic structure. This is not some peripheral consideration: it goes to the heart of the matter. The problem of relations between the monastic community and the world cannot be resolved unless, first of all, a balanced solution has been achieved within the monastery to the tensions which always exist between individual and community, between the person and the group.
(iii) A further reflection of the same kind, philosophical this time rather than psycho-logical, would be just as important in reaching a conclusion about the relations between community and the sociocultural environment today. This is not a speculative discussion but a matter of returning to the classical relationship between 'being' and 'having'. Agere sequitur esse, as generations have repeated. This brings us to the touchstone of each person and every community. The being of every human person expresses itself in his or her actions, and especially in knowing and loving. Endowed with enormous potential to develop in every way, to communicate his inner riches, it is precisely when he acts that the person is conscious of him or herself, for good or for evil. The person experiences pleasure and pain. In acting one enhances oneself and one's very being. As a person thinks independently, that person reflects on the meaning of his or her actions, and chooses those actions, in a word, acts freely. It is precisely then that one expresses one's being, and one's actions mould and transform one's inner self. Action not only expresses the potency of being, it is its very realisation. One could say that action allows being to transcend itself, go beyond itself, become enriched, even if it is only in some humble submission in a personal act, but especially in the efforts one makes to follow Christ. In the case of feelings which are not channelled or erroneous action, the person is diminished. In this regard, recent thought has amended the traditional aphorism about the relationship between 'being' and 'acting', recognising that action is not just the inevitable result of being: it profoundly effects being itself.
If the relationship between being and action is to be dynamic and constructive, there can be no question of predetermining all a person's actions in a purely mechanical way. Within a monastic community one must have some room for manoeuvre if there are not to be serious misunderstandings. Truly personal action can be assisted, set in the right direction, enlightened, but never suffocated; it depends on an interaction with others which is honest and mature.
The relationship between the monastery and the world will never be well adjusted as long as there is a lack of flexibility and understanding between the members of the community, and as long as the tension between individual and group, person and structure remains insufficiently balanced. The relationship between monastery and world is a balance which requires a continuous conversion. People change, situations evolve, history never quite repeats itself.
There is a tension which is never abated because it requires ongoing conversion. This is a tension which requires that we know well the strengths and potential of the monastery and, on the other hand, be very much in touch with the human, socio-religious, and economic circumstances in which we live. This must be kept constantly under review in the consciousness that our ways of acting and thinking can always be improved. In order to improve, one must be open to new points of view and cultural experiences, whilst remaining clear about the authentic monastic tradition. If we respect these requirements, we can remain both united to the Church and present to the world as a positive ferment, without compromise with that 'world' which is estranged from God and alien to human dignity. We will be ready to take on the missionary profile of the Church and, by competent initiatives, to give a lead in the complex and difficult world of today.
In conclusion, I would suggest that each monastery should take position on this question of relationship between monastery and world. This could also be useful in directing candidates towards monastic life and presenting them with a certain kind of life: not just a praying community, but one that does serious work, where each member is engaged in competent work, as an artisan or as an intellectual, with all the sense of responsibility and commitment that this implies. We should foster a way of acting which will make a monk feel responsible in community, at all stages of his life, and mindful of the religious, ecclesial, and social implications of his being in the monastery.
And so, by a different route, we come to the same conclusion: It is urgently necessary that monks be given a serious and sufficient formation which will enable them to offer people a coherent and solid historical, biblical, theological, and humanist knowledge, such as is now in decline in our country, amongst Christians as much as others. Alternatively, a serious training in the exercise of some skill, such as will require diligent application.
A community of trained people, competent monks, engaged responsibly and humbly in professional or academic work, sustained by a shared goal, and with a sense of quality in their openness to the world. In such a perspective the relationship between community and world will certainly remain a difficult balance, but if the community lives its own unity intensely, the relationship will almost spontaneously elicit a reciprocal response which will be profitable for outsiders, and will leave the imprint of a positive, well-formed, human and religious presence in the world of today. Only a community at peace, seeking together an agreed direction and able to agree on its external mission and activity, will be able to overcome in a dynamic way the permanent tension between the monastery and the world.
Translated by Andrew Nugent osb Glenstal Abbey, Ireland
Fr Pius-Ramón Tragan OSB was born in 1928 and made profession in the Abbey of Montserrat, Spain, in 1949; he is a former Rector of Sant'Anselmo, Rome.