Law and Life

Perspectives

Father Aitor Jimenez Echave

Under Secretary for the Dicastery for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life

Updating Constitutions

in Religious Congregations

Summary of the speech of Father Aitor Jimenez Echave’s to the General Chapter of the Subiaco-Cassinese Congregation (September 2025).

– Any process of modification and ‘aggiornamento’ of the Constitutions is driven by changes in human life, in the individual, in society and also in the Church. A process of revision is always born out of a realistic view of how life is lived, and is also born out of the need to adapt in order to respond to the challenges and demands of the Church and society, and also to eliminate anything that might be an obstacle to welcoming the Gospel.

– Necessity requires change if we are not to remain anachronistic. This is all the more true if we consider that the world is undergoing rapid change and that we cannot postpone changes and an ‘aggiornamento’.

– It is also necessary always to have as a point of reference the ecclesial and social context in which a community or congregation lives, in order to avoid the mistake of carrying out a reform that is alien to the context and the reality of the situation.

– The legislative corpus of a religious family can be considered as the human expression of the covenant between God and his people. From this it follows that no law or norm can be understood solely in its literal sense, but as the comprehensible form of the language that God speaks to his people. This is how we can overcome the dichotomy between law and pastoral life, between law and life.

– There are various ways of dealing with a norm: in a negative sense, it can be seen as a merely decorative element, or as a weapon to be wielded, on occasion, to defend oneself or to obtain something that is not being granted.

– We must avoid inertia. On the contrary, it is essential to be ready for the change that will help to expose the inconsistencies of religious life, without being afraid of new things and of dialogue with reality and with the cultural and ecclesial context. An attitude of transparency is therefore needed in order to give oneself in all truth to God and to others, through religious consecration.

– The Constitutions can be understood as a pilgrimage, a way of life: they must therefore help to build up and not rigidify life, so that it remains credible. They serve to ‘constitute’, in other words to show that we belong to a religious family, and to prevent us from falling into libertinism and anarchy. They therefore indicate a path, outlining a trajectory that everyone is called to follow, each at his or her own pace, but all with the same goal.

– Updating the Constitutions could be a passing whim, especially in this day and age. At the same time, it could also be a pitfall for religious, whenever they live minimally, neglecting the spiritual and charismatic vitality of their institute and the radicality of the Sequela Christi and thereby adapting to the habits and customs of the world.

– In order to strengthen the spiritual aspect, reference to the Rule of Saint Benedict and the Magisterium of the Church, including that prior to Vatican II, remains fundamental and indispensable, in order to guarantee the historical and charismatic continuity between the past - even the distant past - and the present. This helps to give ever greater prominence to the theological dimension of the ‘people of God.’ In this way, the deterioration of increasingly individualistic community life can be avoided, without sacrificing the charism and dying of starvation.

– The conciliar decree Unitatis redintegratio states that the renewal of the Church consists in increasing fidelity to vocation. This is why it is important to eliminate everything that stands in the way of renewal and to establish norms that promote fidelity to the charism. In this, monasteries find themselves a sign of contradiction in our society, where the concept of living fidelity is less and less faithfully lived.

– The destructuration of consecrated life is also an important issue, in parallel with the many attempts at destructuration that are currently taking place in society. This trend, which is also on the increase in the Church, is a cause for concern at the moment, because it could lead us to lose sight of the type of consecration we can make, transmit and offer. This is why any revision must go back to the foundations of monastic structures and offer a credible alternative to everything that social reality preaches today.

– The words of Blessed Cardinal Pironio on legislative changes are still full of meaning: these changes must always refer back to the original inspiration on which religious life is based. We must therefore emphasise the fundamental need for fidelity and the sense of belonging that are at the root of each one’s commitment and way of living, and to which personal comfort and ambitions must also be sacrificed.

– Three particularly significant points can be drawn from the conciliar decree Perfectae caritatis (2-4):

• The best form of updating cannot be successful unless it is driven by spiritual renewal.

• Renewal and adaptation are never achieved once and for all, but we must live in a constant attitude of updating.

• Renewal is more about a greater observance of the Rule and Constitutions than about the proliferation of laws.

Perspectives

Dom Étienne Ricaud, osb

Procurator of the Subiaco Cassinese Congregation

Revision of the juridical texts

of the Subiaco Cassinese

Benedictine congregation

The 21st General Chapter of the Subiaco Cassinese Benedictine Congregation[1], held at Montserrat from 30 August to 8 September 2024, dedicated most of its time to discussing and voting on a number of changes to its legislation. Why all this work?

1. Nature and role of the Constitutions of a religious institute

The Constitutions of an institute describe its charism, that is, its distinctive vocation (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 578), and express it juridically, in order to guide the life of its members and provide them with norms of reference for all aspects of their religious life: they specify its essential structures, its mode of government, its discipline, the formation of its members, etc. Lived in conformity with the general law of the Church, from which they cannot derogate, the Constitutions complement it and make it more explicit.

These legislative texts seek to avoid two opposing extremes: writing that is too spiritual, full of pious reflections, or, on the contrary, writing that is purely technical in legal terms. They aim to express themselves concisely and clearly, as precisely as possible, in order to avoid vagueness and ambiguity.

2. Why revise our Constitutions?

The Constitutions of a religious institute are not set in stone and can evolve, both to safeguard the original charism and to adapt it to current circumstances. The realities change, the institute evolves, the Church’s canonical legislation changes (Pope Francis has introduced many changes since the beginning of his pontificate), certain provisions become obsolete, new problems arise: it is then necessary to reformulate the rules or create new ones.

The General Chapter of the institute is the body with the authority to do this work, even if the texts voted on must then be submitted to the Holy See for approval: this is not a simple technical control, but a process of communion through which the Church authenticates the identity of the institute, the way it is expressed juridically and its conformity with universal law.

Prior to our General Chapter, however, the Congregation’s Law Commission undertook a considerable amount of preparatory work, and the monasteries were consulted on the proposed changes: it is only normal that what is to be adopted by all should first be considered by all. Those who participate in such work have a unique opportunity to appropriate the charism and structures of their institute.

3. A brief history of this revision

This revision is certainly not the first; it is in continuation with those that have marked the history of our Congregation. Let us note here only the major stages, from the first Constitutions drawn up in 1867 and approved by the Holy See in 1872, but which, from 1880 onwards, were entirely renewed to bring them more into line with the Benedictine tradition and the contemporary situation. These Constitutions, together with the Declarations on the Rule, remained essentially in force until 1959.[2] The Second Vatican Council prompted a reworking of this legislative corpus, and in 1967, a new text was approved, confirming in particular the tripartite division of the Constitutions approved in 1959, starting not from the top (like the Constitutions of 1880), but from the bottom: the monasteries (first section), then the Province (second section) and finally the Congregation (third section), a structure which better reflects the Benedictine charism. While this new version seemed to have acquired a certain permanence of expression, it had to be revised in 1980 to comply with the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, which asked religious institutes to distinguish in their legislation between a codex fundamentalis, bringing together fundamental doctrinal principles and the most enduring legal norms, and codices additicii containing secondary and adaptable norms. These texts then had to be adjusted to conform to the new Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, which was done at the 1988 General Chapter. Finally, in the course of the General Chapters held since then, minor corrections were made in 1996, 2008 and 2012.

The revision approved by the XXI General Chapter is both modest, because it does not alter the architecture of our legislation, but more ambitious than a simple tidying-up of the text, because it amends and completes it on important points, and modifies no fewer than a hundred numbers out of the two hundred and forty-two that make up the Constitutions and Ordinances of the General Chapters (OCG.)

According to the distinctions required by the Holy See in 1980, our legislative corpus is divided between the Constitutions, a fundamental text with a certain stability, and secondary codes, implementing texts that specify and develop the essential norms contained in the Constitutions: these are the Ordinances of the General Chapters (OGC) and Provincial Chapters (OPC). To these must be added the Ratio formationis and the Ratio studiorum, texts which outline for each Province the programme of formation and studies for the young brothers, as well as the customaries of each monastery.

This body of law, which is of course founded on the Rule of Saint Benedict, forms a complex, multi-layered structure. When it is revised, constant attention must be paid to the coherence between these different levels of legislation, so that none contradicts or is contradicted by another, and to the conformity of the whole with the General Law of the Church. In our revision work, we have had to exercise this vigilance constantly, sometimes focusing on details not apparent on the first reading. And in daily practice, superiors and religious must be careful to act in accordance with the law, taking into account the Code of Canon Law, the Constitutions and the secondary codes.

4. The Programme of Revision

The amendments proposed and adopted were grouped thematically into five parts.

A/ Miscellaneous Adjustments

By 2011, errors and gaps had been identified in our texts, as well as discrepancies between certain vernacular translations and the original Latin text (with additions that had not been approved) and incomplete references. All of these have been corrected. For the sake of consistency, articles have been moved within the Constitutions or the OGCs, or from the Constitutions to the OGCs and vice versa, in order to distinguish more permanent articles from secondary and adaptable norms.

B/ Votes of Chapters and Councils

The rules governing deliberations within a Council or Chapter have been clarified. A clear distinction must be made between collegial votes, where it is the group itself that decides – for example, during an election – and where the superior is only one of the voters, and deliberative or consultative votes, where the group simply gives the superior its consent or opinion, so that he can decide and act or not. In this case, the superior does not take part in the vote, as he cannot be his own advisor. It was also necessary to clarify the method for calculating the majority of votes. Our communities were not always clear about the difference between collegial voting, deliberative voting and consultative voting, and superiors did not always know if and when they should vote with their Council or Chapter. The changes adopted clarify all this. Good governance depends on the correct use of these deliberative practices, to avoid both abuse of power and weak democracy.

C/ Criteria and process for the reduction and suppression of a monastery

Our legislation was originally conceived with a view to the growth of monasteries, from their foundation to their autonomy. Nowadays, especially in Europe, we have to recognise that the trend has been reversed and that it is often necessary to accompany the decline of monasteries and to have suitable procedures in place to do so.

These already existed, but recent experience has shown them to be insufficient and in need of further clarification. The changes made to the law provide our Congregation with better legal tools to support houses which are struggling. The procedure envisaged is in three stages: identification of the criteria that make it possible to discern that a house is no longer able to maintain its autonomy; a process aimed at strengthening the house, in the first instance with the help of the superior of a stronger house; then, if the means used do not succeed, the reduction of the house to a house affiliated to the stronger house. Finally, if this remedy does not work, the house is suppressed, always with great respect for persons and the property.

D/ Government of the Abbot President and his Councils

This question comes up regularly in our Congregation, because the balance between the autonomy of the monasteries and central government is always a delicate one, so that “based on the principles both of pluralism and subsidiarity, it helps the monasteries with legal instruments and brotherly assistance: specifically, by the institution of Provinces, which are ruled by the Provincial Chapter and by the Visitor with his Councils; and by the general government, which is exercised through the General Chapter and the Abbot President with his Councils” (Constitutions, no. 4). It seems that when monasteries or provinces are in a weakened state, they have greater need of the services of the central government. The changes adopted therefore provide the Abbot President with better means to fulfil his mission, which consists not only of confirming, supporting and stimulating Provinces and monasteries in their monastic life, fostering their unity and maintaining the link with the Holy See, but also of resolving delicate problems that are referred to the central government or even to the Holy See. And there is no shortage of them!

E/ Non-clerical Major Superiors

The recent derogation granted by Pope Francis to clerical Institutes of pontifical right to have non-clerical major superiors[3] was examined by the General Chapter, since, according to the official interpretation given by the Dicastery it is up to the Institutes as a whole, and not to individuals, to decide whether or not they wish to avail themselves of this derogation. For this reason, Abbot President Dom Guillermo Arboleda first issued a decree on this subject on 9 November 2023, valid until this Chapter, which confirmed it and incorporated its contents into our Constitutions. According to these Constitutions, our Congregation can make use of this derogation only for major superiors of monasteries sui iuris, but not for Visitors or for the Abbot President. It should be remembered that a non-clerical Major Superior is not an Ordinary within the meaning of canon 134 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law; consequently, the acts of a Major Superior requiring the ordinary power of jurisdiction, which derives from the sacrament of Holy Orders (cf. can. 129 § 1; 274 § 1), must be carried out by someone other than him, endowed with this ordinary power, which it is up to each Institute to foresee and designate.

Ce labeur canonique quelque peu austère a pu être mené à bien par le Chapitre avec souplesse et sans tension, et les propositions faites ont été toutes adoptées en peu de temps à la majorité requise. La phase préparatoire, longue et soignée, a permis d’aboutir à ce résultat.

The measures adopted by the General Chapter determine that it will then be the Visitor for the monasteries of his Province, and the Abbot President for the monasteries not in a Province; for this reason, the Chapter has retained the requirement that both must be priests (cf. Constitutions n° 120; 138), thereby exercising the ordinary power of government.

This somewhat austere canonical work was carried out by the Chapter with flexibility and without any tension, and the proposals made were all adopted in a short time by the required majority. The long and careful preparatory phase made it possible to achieve this result.

[1] Fr. Josep Enric PARELLADA published an account of this in AIM Bulletin no. 127. (2024), pp. 93-95.

[2] See Giuseppe TAMBURRINO, O.S.B., Lex militiae nostrae. La legislazione sublacense nella sua evoluzione. Abbazia di Praglia/Congregazione Benedettina Sublacense, 2009.

[3] Ruling of 18.05.2022, no. 3.

Perspectives

Sr. Lynn McKenzie, OSB

CIB Moderator

Communio Internationalis Benedictinarum

Changes Envisaged

Communio Internationalis Benedictinarum (CIB) is the international organization of Benedictine women founded some 40-50 years ago, at the invitation of the abbot primate of the worldwide Benedictine Confederation of monks. CIB meets annually. Currently the CIB meetings include a delegate and substitute from each of the 19 regions of the world that CIB established approximately 30 years ago. In addition, the CIB is led by a Moderator (currently Lynn McKenzie, OSB, Sacred Heart Monastery, Cullman, Alabama, USA), an assistant moderator (currently Franziska Lukas, OSB, St. Scholastika Abbey, Dinklage, Germany) and four other council members (currently Cecile Lañas, Philippines, Maria del Mar Albajar i Viñas, Spain, Anna Brennan, UK, and Hilda Scott, Australia, as well as an executive secretary (Mary Luke Jones, USA).

Since 2021, during the pandemic, the CIB Conference of Delegates was meeting virtually and discussing a possible change in the structure of the CIB. Up to now, the CIB has been a body “consociated” within the Benedictine Confederation. At our meeting in September 2023 held at my home monastery in Cullman, Alabama, USA, we furthered the discussion, led by the CIB Juridic Study Commission. That commission is chaired by Sr. Scholastika Häring (Germany), and the other members are Sr. Nancy Bauer (USA), Sr. Patricia Henry (Mexico) and Sr. Noemi Scarpa (Italy). We are grateful for the work they have done over the last years in studying our current documents and imagining another way to be CIB.

A proposed change under current consideration is to imagine two equal branches of the Benedictine order – that of the women in the CIB and that of the men in the Confederation. The CIB would be led by a Moderator who, while having no technical jurisdiction, would have more full-time responsibilities of connecting with Benedictine women around the globe and being the liaison for Benedictine women with the Abbot Primate and the confederation as well as with the Vatican dicastery for institutes of consecrated life. It would be a structure parallel to the Confederation.

The policy-making arm of the CIB (currently called the CIB Conference of Delegates) would have a new structure that would no longer be based on geographical regions but rather based on congregations and federations, many of which have formed since the time of Cor Orans, the Vatican document which requires, among other things, that women’s monasteries of moniales be a part of either a monastic congregation or a federation. The heads of these congregations and federations, such as presidents and prioresses general, would be the members of such a policy making arm of the CIB (instead of the current CIB Conference of Delegates). For those in mixed congregations of men and women, the congregation would need to determine who the CIB representative will be from among the women of the mixed congregation.

These are the basic elements of a re-structured CIB, with many practical details yet to be worked out.

The CIB Juridic Study Commission presented its proposals to the CIB Conference of Delegates in September 2023 and were then guided in their future work by the discussions held among the delegates while in Cullman. Next steps were discussed at the next meeting of the CIB Conference of Delegates which was held in Assisi, before the Congress of Abbots meeting in Rome, in September 2024.

A central topic for the most recent meeting of CIB Conference of Delegates held in Assisi in September 2024 was about these proposed structural changes to CIB, to enable it to better serve Benedictine women around the world. In fact, the whole point of CIB is to build a strong communion among Benedictine women. Whatever CIB can do to further this mission is what CIB should be about. Having recognized, among other things, that our region-based structure (there are 19 somewhat arbitrarily drawn CIB regions in the world) does not work as well as it might, given difficulties with communication, we have set about finding the best way to address that. The appointed CIB juridic study commission is working to help us find a good way forward.

The overall proposal of the CIB becoming a parallel organization to the Benedictine Confederation has been well received and has been endorsed generally by those attending the CIB meetings since 2021. The proposal to change from a regionally based organization to an organization based on congregations and federations of Benedictine women would allow more organic communications through the systems already employed by the congregations and federations. These proposed organizational changes were also presented to the Congress of Abbots in Rome, which was also held in September 2024.

Next steps in this re-organization of CIB include developing statutes by the juridic commission and reviewing them at the next meeting of CIB to be held in September 2025 in Montserrat.

The Juridic Commission has made clear the following points:

1. We are considering the structure, the organization of Benedictine Women on the world-wide / global level. We are not considering the juridical structure, the juridical status on the level of the monastery itself and also not on the level of the Congregations (of sisters, of nuns, female, mixed) and Federations.

2. The aim is:

            - to better represent Benedictine women

            - to be on equal footing with the monks

            - to have our own voice in the Church.

3. Our foundation is the development of CIB in the last 50 years under the umbrella of the confederation of monks.

4. The Vision is to have one Benedictine Order, with a male and female branch.

Our monastic vocation, of course, is to seek God in the monastery, the school of the Lord’s service. How this is lived locally across continents, cultures and languages is a testament to the wisdom of St. Benedict in the Rule he has left us. It is a document that provides good structure, yet with flexibility and adaptability to both women and men, to various locales each with its own challenges and struggles. How we can support and challenge one another to lives of joy and faith and fidelity, being stable in an unstable world, doing our best to carry the light that shines in our hearts of love is a daily monastic work among the monasteries of CIB. The CIB, a communion of Benedictine women, strives to support this monastic way of life as lived around the globe.

Perspectives

Sr. Thérèse-Benoît Kaboré, OSB

Nun of Koubri (Burkina Faso)

and member of the International Team of AIM

The Federation of Our Lady of the Encounter

(Notre-Dame de la Rencontre)

In response to the requests of the Apostolic Constitution Vultum Dei Quaerere on the contemplative life of women and the accompanying Instruction Cor Orans, some fifteen monasteries in France and in a number of countries in West Africa decided to form a federation: the ‘Federation of Our Lady of the Encounter’ (Fédération Notre-Dame de la Rencontre), which officially came into being on 22 February 2022. Although links already existed between the vast majority of these monasteries, this new structure makes relations more formal and encourages greater communion.

For a better understanding of our contribution, we will start with a few remarks about Cor orans before turning to the relationships that exist between the monasteries of the Federation of Our Lady of the Encounter. We will look at the link that exists between this Federation and the Subiaco Cassinese Congregation.

1. Some General Remarks[1]

The word federation derives from the Latin foedus, meaning convention, alliance, pact, etc. Issue 86 of Cor Orans defines the Federation as follows:

“The Federation is a structure of communion among monasteries of the same Institute erected by the Holy See so that monasteries which share the same charism do not remain isolated but keep it faithfully and, giving each other mutual fraternal help, live the indispensable value of communion[71]. (cf. VDQ 28-30)”[2].

Each monastery remains autonomous, but establishes links of communion with other monasteries which, more often than not, share the same charism, as in the case of the fedration of Our Lady of the Encounter where all the monasteries are of Benedictine spirituality.

With the arrival of Cor Orans and the proliferation of federations that have sprung up, one might think that federation is a very recent reality. But in fact, this is not the case. Federation came into being in the middle of the last century, following the promulgation of Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sponsa Christi Ecclesia in 1950. This institution was born as a structure for mutual help, fraternity and support. For the Sovereign Pontiff,  federation offered a way by which monasteries could overcome their isolation and together promote regular observance and the contemplative life

The Constitution Sponsa Christi Ecclesia strongly encouraged Federations, which it saw as a necessity in certain cases, but did not make them an obligatory requirement. In the same perspective, the Second Vatican Council, in the decree Perfectae Caritatis, encouraged the creation of federations between sui iuris monasteries belonging in one way or another to the same religious family, but did not impose any obligation. The Code of Canon Law itself makes no mention of any obligation. It merely emphasises that the creation of a federation is reserved solely to the Apostolic See (cf. can. 582). Another mention of federation appears in the third paragraph of can. 684, which deals with the question of transferring from one monastery to another.

The same will be true of the Instruction Verbi Sponsa of 13 May 1999, which defines  federations as “a means of ensuring support and coordination between monasteries, in order that the latter may properly fulfil their vocation in the Church. Their principal purpose is therefore to safeguard and promote the values of the contemplative life in the monasteries which belong to them.”[3] While strongly encouraging these groupings, the Instruction takes care to specify that “The decision to belong or not to such bodies depends on each community, whose freedom must be respected.”[4]

The freedom given to each monastery to join or not to join a federation, to which the documents quoted above bear witness, meant that until the advent of Vultum Dei Quaerere and Cor Orans, the majority of women’s monasteries of the Latin rite remained without any links with others, and that several monasteries in the same region took little notice of one another. With Vultum Dei Quaerere and Cor Orans, things changed: belonging to a Federation became an obligation for all sui iuris monasteries: “Pursuant to the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Vultum Dei Quaerere, all monasteries must initially enter a Federation.”[5]

The Federation is not a Congregation! It is a structure that respects the autonomy of the monasteries that are part of it. Its statutes do not concern the life of the monasteries, which are governed by the Constitutions of each monastery, but rather the life of the Federation. It was thought that the President of the Federation would have the powers of a major superior, but this choice was deemed inappropriate as there would be no difference between a President of a Federation and an abbess, president of a monastic congregation. The President of the Federation is therefore not a major superior, even if her authority has been increased. She can only undertake what is established in the Instruction Cor Orans.[6] She currently has three new powers:

a) The right of access to federated monasteries: before Cor Orans, the President of the Federation was authorised to make maternal visits to monasteries, but the real visitor was the diocesan bishop or the male religious Ordinary. The visit had to be agreed and the superior of the monastery had to allow the President to enter her monastery. The visit therefore has to be requested and accepted. At present, there are three levels of visits:

1) Maternal and sisterly visits (cf. Cor Orans 114) ;

2) Special visits, carried out when there are problems in a monastery, with the President of the Federation carrying out an on-site investigation (Cor Orans 113), and

3) the canonical visitation proper, where the President of the Federation accompanies the diocesan bishop or the male religious Ordinary as co-visitor. However, it should be noted that even if she is only a co-visitor, she has a very important role to play during the visitation and even afterwards.[7]

b) The extension of exclaustration: One might ask why the superior of a sui iuris monastery, who is a major superior, should not be given the authority to grant exclaustration for three years, as major superiors of other religious institutes do. This is a legitimate question, but the Dicastery has ruled otherwise. The first year of exclaustration is granted by the superior of the monastery and the extensions of the second and third years are granted by the President of the Federation with the consent of the Council of the Federation (cf. CO 130).

c) The President of the Federation must also give her opinion in the case of the alienation or other transactions in which the patrimony of a monastery of the Federation could be adversely affected.[8] This provision derogates from the norm of can. 638 §4, which assigned this role to the local Ordinary, who had to give his consent in writing in such situations.

As far as the structure of the Federation is concerned, there are no significant changes, i.e. it has remained largely the same. The President of the Federation has a Council of four people (cf. CO 123). The Federation has its own powers, an established place, in addition to the four councillors, a secretary, a bursar[9] and a person responsible for formation[10] within the Federation.

In a particular way, the Federation has an important role to play in the field of formation - formation of abbesses, common novitiate, courses for temporary professed nuns and many other types of formation - as well as in helping monasteries in difficulty. On this last point, the Federation will be able to facilitate the transfer of nuns between communities, either temporarily or permanently, in order to support a community in difficulty.

In addition, Cor Orans gives the Federation the possibility of founding or affiliating a monastery. Even if she is not a major superior, in the case of foundation or affiliation, the President of the Federation acts as a major superior.

2. Communion between the monasteries of the Federation of Our Lady of the Encounter

Communion is a characteristic feature of the Church. We have just experienced the Synod on Synodality, which reminded us of this in a very powerful way:

“The Church is called to walk together, [...] to be synodal Christians are called to walk at the side of others, and never as lone travellers. [...] Journeying together means consolidating the unity grounded in our common dignity as children of God.”[11].

This is what the monasteries of our Federation want to live out. Their name says it all: ‘Our Lady of the Encounter’. This name outlines a whole programme. The monasteries of the Federation want to ‘develop a heart that beats as a whole for the whole.’[12] This clearly expresses the desire to live communion.

The greater the communion, the greater the opportunities for collaboration, for helping and being helped. From this point of view, federal assemblies, like other meetings between members of the Federation, are powerful moments of communion and of enriching sharing. We share not only our difficulties but also our experiences.

These meetings of the Federation help us to get to know each other better. They also give us the opportunity to support and encourage each other, to break out of our isolation and loneliness and meet others. When we are in a position of strength, we can give the impression that we are self-sufficient, that we don’t need others. The experience of fragility that all communities go through in one way or another makes us understand the value of communion, the need to walk together and to support each other. Today, if we want to go further, we can’t go it alone. Pope Francis, of venerable memory, has constantly reminded us of this in recent years: ‘You can’t save yourself. We also need others’.

The possibility of an exchange of fraternal services between monasteries[13] is a precious element that should be emphasised. When a monastery needs help, the others sometimes send sisters to support that monastery. In this way, the Federation is a true structure of charity in action.

On behalf of the Federation, the monasteries of West Africa support their sisters at the monastery of Sainte-Croix de Friguiagbé in Guinea Conakry. On this point, it must be recognised that the monasteries of West Africa were already experiencing real fraternal relations through the association created in 1980 by the founding nuns. It is likewise on behalf of the Federation that Jouarre Abbey welcomes elderly sisters from other French monasteries in the Federation to its care home for elderly sisters.

Fraternal visits on the occasion of certain important events such as the abbatial blessing, solemn professions, the dedication of the monastery church, etc., are all ways of expressing the desire to journey together and to support each other. For example, two years ago, on behalf of the Federation, several nuns from French monasteries took part in the dedication of the church of the Bonne-Nouvelle monastery in Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire. Similarly, several monasteries were represented at the solemn profession of Sister Marie-Gertrude of Sainte-Croix of Friguiagbé, last December. Of particular note was the presence of Mother Abbess Bénédicte de l’Assomption, from Dzogbégan, Federal Councillor, at several of these events.

The most important part of the Federation’s organisational structure is the Federal Assembly, which is generally made up of the superior and a delegate of each monastery. The Assembly establishes the orientations and decisions of the Federation with reference to the Statutes. The Federation’s first General Assembly took place from 7 to 13 November 2022 in Jouarre. Its task was to elect its first President, Mother Christophe Brondy, Abbess of Jouarre. Together with the members of the Council elected at the same assembly, she undertook to lead the Federation for 6 years. Preparations for the intermediate Federal Assembly,[14] which will take place from 16 to 22 November, are underway, with several online meetings of superiors, who greatly appreciate these opportunities to exchange ideas and share experiences.

It is clear that the Federation will function to the degree that a climate of communion, trust and collaboration is established between the monasteries. Each monastery must recognise that it cannot live in total isolation from the others, nor can it hide behind its own autonomy to avoid being disturbed or having to answer to anyone for its actions. Everyone has to feel responsible for the smooth running of the Federation.

3. Link between the Federation and the Subiaco Cassinese Congregation

Cor Orans asks that ‘legal association of monasteries of nuns to the corresponding male order should be encouraged in order to protect the identity of the charismatic family.’[15] Our Federation turned to the Subiaco Cassinese Congregation, a Congregation with which all the monasteries of the Federation were in one way or another already associated. This association offers the monasteries of the Federation invaluable help by linking them to the spiritual life and traditions of the Congregation. In particular, the Federation has ‘the possibility of benefitting from indults granted to the Subiaco Cassinese Congregation which may concern the life of the nuns’. Similarly, it can have recourse to ‘the Procurator of the Congregation in matters concerning the Federation’s relations with the Roman Curia’. The Federation can also use the Ordo divini officii of the Congregation. It should also be added that ‘the religious assistant, representing the Holy See in relation to the Federation, is preferably an abbot or a priest-monk from the Subiaco Cassinese Congregation’.[16] In this way, the association creates deep bonds of spiritual and fraternal life with our brothers of the Congregation and makes us feel that we are true daughters of Saint Benedict. This is a good thing!

Could we imagine one day forming a single congregation? We can’t help but dream! But for the moment, our structure is that of a Federation. It has a major role to play in giving new impetus to the life of the monasteries. For the monasteries themselves, it allows us to live autonomy in communion. Today we need to develop a mentality of wider communion, of mutual knowledge and availability to the needs of the different realities of every community, which each of the federated monasteries should experience as its own...

[1] On these observations, read: O. PEPE, La federazione dei monasteri fra presente e futuro, in Sequela Christi, XLII (2016), 319-332; T.B. KABORE, Vie monastique et législation canonique, l’identité bénédictine face aux défis contemporains en Afrique de l’Ouest, Saint-Léger, 2023, 214-218.

[2] Cor Orans 86.

[3] Verbi Sponsa 27.

[4] Verbi Sponsa 27.

[5] Cor Orans 93.

[6] Cf. Cor Orans 110.

[7] Cf. CO (Cor Orans) 111-112 ; 115-116.

[8] Cf. CO 52-53.

[9] Cf. CO 134.

[10] Cf. CO 148.

[11] Pope Francis,‘Let us journey together in hope’ Message for Lent 2025.

[12] This was the watchword of the first Federal Assembly.

[13] Federation of Our Lady of the Encounter, Statutes article 6.

[14] Cf. CO 136.

[15] CO 79.

[16] Federation of Our Lady of the Encounter, Statutes, art. 61.

Communities who are members of the Federation: Abbey of Pradines (France), Abbey of La Rochette (France), Abbey of Jouarre (France), Abbey of  Maumont (France), Abbey of Chantelle (France), Abbey of Poitiers (France), Priory of Bouaké (Côte d’Ivoire), Priory of Friguiagbé (Guinea Conakry), Abbey of Dourgne (France), Monastery of Flée (France), Abbey of Limon (France), Abbey of Valogne (France), Abbey of Venière (France), Monastery of Urt (France), Monastery of Sadori (Togo), Monastery of Koubri (Burkina Faso), Abbey of Dzogbégan (Togo).

Perspectives

Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance (OCSO)

Statute on the Accompaniment

of Fragile Communities

and on the Suppression of a Monastery

Introduction

1. When a community is confronted with increasing fragility it is encouraged to face the situation honestly. Every community in the Order, in every continent, may have to face this fragility at a certain moment in its history. It is important in that case that the community not withdraw in isolation under the pretext of its autonomy, but see itself “as part of a true communion which is constantly open to encounter, dialogue, attentive listening and mutual assistance” (cf. VDQ 29). The Charter of Charity also teaches us to look for and to accept concrete assistance “that we may live by one charity” (CC III.2).

2. “In a spirit of docility to the voice of the Holy Spirit” the community discusses the situation ‘humbly and forthrightly’ (cf. C. 36.1). Everyone is called to mutual care, collaboration and obedience. “The light of faith is especially necessary in these times in order to see that, through these difficult periods, one’s heart is being formed by the personal and communal experience of Christ’s cross, death and resurrection” (Ratio 54).

Creative solutions are needed in these situations.

I. Awareness of Fragility

3. In the first instance it is the responsibility of each community, under the leadership of its superior, to look realistically at its situation, not only from a human point of view, but especially from the point of view of faith. An experience of fragility should be accepted as an invitation of the Lord to choose life by entering into the Paschal mystery.

4. In the spirit of the Gospel, communities should ask for and accept help from the Father Immediate, the Region, the Abbot General, the General Chapter, or others. Elements to be considered in the evaluation and discernment can include

• the number of monks or nuns;

• the age profile of the community;

• whether it has the vitality needed to live the monastic life;

• the capacity of the community to provide for formation and governance;

• the dignity and quality of the liturgical, fraternal, and spiritual life of the community;

• the community’s witness value and its communion with the local church;

• whether its economic structure is healthy;

• whether the buildings are suitable for the present community.

These elements should be considered comprehensively, in an overall, balanced perspective and in the context of the particular community.

5. In a situation of increasing fragility in his daughter house, the Father Immediate must have the courage to help the superior and the community to face this reality. The regular visitation is the most suitable instrument for this purpose (Stat RV 15).

II. Pastoral Measures and Collaboration

6. In helping the community to face its situation, the Father Immediate proceeds with great tact and charity, trusting in the work of the Holy Spirit in each person and in the community. Together they will search for ways to help the community to live the fullness of Cistercian conversatio.

These could include:

– becoming aware of changes in society, of the reality of the young, and of the necessity of changing methods of formation;

– adapting buildings, liturgy, horarium, work, and economy to the size and capabilitiesof the community;

– changes of officers; help through personnel from other communities or from outside the Order (e.g. for health care, economy);

– work to promote better communication in the community or to promote reconciliation among its members;

– searching for other forms of help within the filiation or from the Region;

– creation of a Commission for the Future.

7. The success of these measures depends to a large extent on the cooperation and good will of all involved (community, superior, Father Immediate).

III. Advanced Fragility: Special Measures

8. If, after all these efforts, the situation of fragility persists, the superior or the Father Immediate, or a Commission of the General Chapter, or the Abbot General, will bring the situation to the particular attention of the General Chapter. If the Father Immediate judges that the community can no longer form new aspirants, he requests the General Chapter to suspend its right to receive aspirants, in accordance with St. 79.B.

9. A Commission for the Future will be established by the General Chapter, which will include the Father Immediate and will replace any existing Commission. The purpose and mandate of this new Commission will be specified by the General Chapter. It will include ensuring that the temporal goods of the monastery are well managed, in accordance with the Constitutions and the civil law of the place, and safeguarded in the light of the possible future closure of the monastery.

10. If the situation of the community still does not improve, the General Chapter, at the request of the Father Immediate, may proceed to the suspension of the exercise of autonomy of the community. This vote of the General Chapter requires an absolute majority. The General Chapter then appoints a Monastic Commissary who will oversee the care of the members of the community so that they can continue to live life together in the fullest way possible. This Commissary, who may be from within or without the Order, is a major religious superior with limited authority as defined in the letter of appointment. He or she will report regularly to the Father Immediate. If this person is not already a member of the Commission for the Future, he or she becomes so at the time of appointment as monastic commissary. In some exceptional or urgent cases, the General Chapter can appoint the Father Immediate as a Monastic Commissary.

11. The Monastic Commissary does not need to live at the monastery. He or she can appoint someone else to take care of the daily needs of the community; this latter could be a member of the community, another member of the Order, of another religious institute, or a lay person.

12. The Monastic Commissary chooses at least two people as advisors, who may be from within or from outside the community. When necessary, these advisors function as council of the monastic commissary. The conventual chapter is suspended except for acts of extraordinary administration and for the vote mentioned in no. 19 below. The Monastic Commissary keeps the members of the community informed and listens to their opinion on matters of importance.

13. Suspension of the exercise of autonomy does not change the relationship of filiation. The Father Immediate continues to help and support the monastic commissary of his daughter house in the exercise of his/her charge (cf. C. 74.1). All the rights and obligations of the Father Immediate towards the daughter house remain intact, including that of the regular visitation.

14. If the community whose exercise of autonomy is suspended has daughter houses, the Father Immediate, in consultation with the daughter houses, will decide how the exercise of paternity will be carried out.

15. If the situation of the community improves and the community and/or the Father Immediate is of the opinion that the exercise of autonomy can be resumed, either or both of them advises the General Chapter of this. The General Chapter enquires into the matter and judges whether or not to lift the suspension, which requires an absolute majority vote of the General Chapter.

16. Between General Chapters in cases that cannot be postponed the Abbot General with the consent of his Council has the authority to act in the name of the General Chapter in all that is stated above in relation to the suspension of the exercise of autonomy of a community (C. 82.2).

IV. The Process of Suppression

17. When due to particular and long-standing circumstances a monastery no longer offers any basis for hope of growth (cf. PC 21), careful consideration is given to whether it should be closed.

18. The bishop of the place is consulted.

19. When the community has reached the awareness that it must be closed, the Father Immediate invites the conventual chapter to express its acceptance of this reality through a vote which requires an absolute majority.

20. To consider the suppression of a monastery, the General Chapter requires a written report from the Father Immediate and the Monastic Commissary together with their opinions of the matter.

21m. Only the General Chapter, by a two-thirds majority, can decide on the suppression of an autonomous monastery.

21f. Only the General Chapter, by a two-thirds majority, can petition the Holy See to suppress an autonomous monastery (CIC 6164).

22. After the General Chapter has voted to suppress a monastery, or, in the case of a monastery of nuns, to ask the Holy See to do so, it names a Commission of Closure composed of at least five persons to implement the suppression. This Commission, which replaces the Commission mentioned in par. 9 above, gives great pastoral care to the members of the suppressed house, and ensures that each one finds a community of the Order which will accept him or her with a view to making stability. Every member of the Order has the right and the duty of having stability in a monastery of the Order, with all the related rights and obligations.

23. The community that accepts such members coming from a suppressed community will express its willingness and commitment through a vote. This vote, requiring an absolute majority, is taken at the moment of acceptance, not after a period of probation. Such new members of a community will be invited to exercise prudence in using their newly acquired voting right.

24. When an aged or sick member of a suppressed monastery must live permanently in any type of nursing home, a community of the Order must accept to care for him or her until death. He or she acquires stability in this community but, taking their physical absence into account, the exercise of their voting rights may be suspended.

25. The financial assets of the suppressed monastery, respecting the civil law of the place and the will of the founders and donors, follow the surviving members of the community and go, in proportion, to the monasteries that receive them. If these assets are significant, a portion of them is reserved to help other monasteries of the Order, and to respond to the needs of the locality where the monastery is situated. The management of this distribution of assets, and of other elements of the patrimony of the monastery (e.g. archives, library) is confided to the Commission of Closure which supervises the closure. It may be helped, if necessary, by competent persons who need not be members of the Order.

If the community has debts, the same Commission will repay them by drawing on the financial assets of the community prior to dividing them, and by appealing, if necessary, to other communities or to the organs of the Order such as the Commission of Aid or the Finance Commission of the Order.

26. This Commission gives a report on its work to the following General Chapter, and in the meantime keeps the Abbot General and his Council informed of the progress of events.

27. When the process of closure is entirely concluded, the General Chapter issues a declaration of closure. The work of the Commission of Closure then ceases.

Perspectives

Dom Bernard Lorent Tayart, osb

President of AIM

Questions to two new presidents

of congregations

Recently, the Subiaco Cassinese and Sankt Ottilien congregations, which are among the largest in the Confederation, have elected their Abbot President : Dom Ignasi M. Fossas for Subiaco Cassinese, Dom Javier Aparicio Suarez for Sankt Ottilien. The two new Abbot Presidents come from the Iberian Peninsula. We take this opportunity to meet them and ask them about the way their congregation works, formation, the economy and the spiritual life.

Before being president, what was your own monastic journey?

F. A. Ignasi: I was infimarian for four years, secretary to the Abbot for five years, bursar for six and three years respectively, novice master for two and a half years, sub-prior for four years and prior for ten years.

F. A. Javier: In 2010, I was appointed superior of our community in Spain, which is on the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage route. Since 2021, I have been the procurator of the Sankt-Ottilien congregation, which is the equivalent of the bursar general.

Dom Ignasis M. Fossas, President of the Subiaco Cassinese Congregation. Dom Javier Aparicio Suarez, President of the Sankt Ottilien Congregation

I. The Working of Your congregation

How would you describe your congregation? What are its principal charisms? How many members and how many houses? Languages used?

F. A. Ignasi: The Subiaco Cassinese congregation is an international congregation that has been formed over the last 150 years through the gradual aggregation of very different monasteries. The main characteristic of the congregation is precisely its diversity. There are monasteries with large schools and at the same time monasteries located in the middle of the countryside. Furthermore, our monasteries are spread over five continents.

F. A. Javier: I think we are a very dynamic congregation, with an energy that comes precisely from combining the monastic dimension with our eminently missionary charism.

Your two congregations are international. Where are your monasteries located? What languages do you use to communicate between your communities?

F. A. Ignasi: As I have just said, we are established on five continents. The languages used are Italian, French, English and Spanish, in addition to local languages.

F. A. Javier  Apart from Australia, we have monasteries on four continents, with a strong presence in Africa and of course in Europe, where the congregation originated. The official language for our meetings is English but, given our international character, learning languages is an important tool for carrying out our mission.

What is the make up of your General Chapter?

F. A. Ignasi: Our General Chapter is made up of all the superiors of the monasteries sui juris, the visitors from the eight provinces that make up the congregation and the delegates from each province (one delegate for every hundred monks).

F. A. Javier: All the major superiors of each community attend the General Chapter, in addition to one representative from each monastery elected by the communities. The members of the Council of the congregation are also present, and sometimes the superiors of certain dependent houses are invited. And finally, there is a considerable number of assistants: secretaries, translators, etc.

Does it always meet in the same place?

F. A. Ignasi: Not always. We usually meet in Italy a little before the Abbots’ Congress to make travelling easier for monks from far away. But the last General Chapter, in 2024, was held in Montserrat to celebrate the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of this abbey.

F. A. Javier: This year, exceptionally, we met at the Abbey of Waegwan in Korea. Otherwise, the General Chapter meets at Sankt Ottilien, in Bavaria.

How long does it last? How often does it take place?

F. A. Ignasi: The General Chapter meets every four years and lasts an average of five to seven days.

F. A. Javier: If there’s nothing exceptional to deal with, the Chapter lasts two weeks and is convened every four years.

How is the Council of your congregation made up?

F. A. Ignasi: In the Subiaco Cassinese congregation, the Abbot President has two Councils: first the Council of Visitors, which meets in May and November; then the Council of Assistants, made up of four monks, one of whom is the procurator, which usually meets once a month.

F. A. Javier: The Council is chaired, of course, by the Abbot President. The Council is made up of the Procurator and the Secretary who are proposed by the Abbot President and confirmed by the Chapter; two abbots are elected as assistants to the Abbot President and five members are also elected by the Chapter. This makes a total of ten members.

How often does it meet? In person? By Zoom?

F. A. Ignasi: Normally the meetings are face-to-face, but there is also the possibility of using Zoom.

F. A. Javier: We meet twice a year face-to-face for five days. In addition, we have regular meetings via Zoom.

Does your congregation have a permanent headquarters?

F. A. Javier: The headquarters of the congregation (house of the congregation) is located in the Abbey of Sankt Ottilien. The Abbot President, the Procurator and the Secretary reside there.

F. A. Ignasi: Our residence is in Rome, via Sant’Ambrogio 3, in the ‘Domus paterna sancti Ambrosii’.

Given the size of your congregations, do you have a separate regional organisation? How do interregional relations work?

F. A. Javier: Sometimes certain parts of the world work more closely together, as is the case for the monasteries in Africa, which make up 59% of the congregation. Similarly, the European monasteries have their own specific weight. We intend to strengthen relations between the monasteries in America and Asia.

F. A. Ignasi: We are organised into provinces. Some provinces are based on region, such as the Vietnamese, Italian and Filipino provinces; others are based on language: the French, Spanish and English provinces.

Do you have the opportunity to bring together the superiors of your monasteries outside the General Chapter? Do they meet often? Can you yourself meet them outside Chapters or canonical visits?

F. A. Javier: Every four years, between the celebration of the General Chapter, a meeting is called with all the major superiors to evaluate the past Chapter, to monitor the progression of the topics dealt with and to propose new topics for the next Chapter.

In addition, the various regions hold annual meetings of superiors. Finally, there are many informal opportunities for superiors to meet.

F. A. Ignasi: Because of the size of our congregation, all the superiors meet only at General Chapters. Among themselves, however, they meet at provincial or regional level, with superiors of other Benedictine congregations or even other Orders.

Do you envisage within your congregation the transfer of monks or nuns from the South, where vocations are more numerous, to the North where they are lacking? Or do you let the communities deal with this independently?

F. A. Javier: It’s a complex issue that requires a detailed response. Experience shows us that each case must be dealt with individually, both for the monk and for the community for which he is destined. It’s not so much a question of numbers, but more a question of motivation and a commitment to ensure that this can be carried through to a successful conclusion. Nonetheless, this is not a closed issue and the congregation as such is very committed to considering it.

F. A. Ignasi: Each community decides independently. There is some movement, but it’s more in the context of the hospitality of monasteries in the North who welcome monks from the South to facilitate formation.

How does your congregation react to the possibility of having major superiors who are not priests, when your congregations are undoubtedly considered to be priestly by the Holy See?

F. A. Javier: The question is very different from the previous one, but the answer is the same: each case must be treated separately, taking into account the individual and the community.

F. A. Ignasi: There are already some examples that work well, I believe. The last General Chapter introduced changes to our Constitutions along these lines. We are awaiting the response of the Dicastery (CICLSAL).

Do you have a Law Commission with the mandate to help you for such questions?

F. A. Javier: We don’t have a Canonical Commission as such, but we do have experts in canon law who are consulted when necessary.

F. A. Ignasi: es, we have a Commission.

II. Formation

With regard to formation, do you have a common programme within the congregation, or is each monastery autonomous in this area?

F. A. Ignasi: ach monastery is autonomous, but there are common programmes for each province. A good example is the Studium in Bouaké.

F. A. Javier: Some years ago, we drew up a number of elements of formation, not a statute, which envisaged some of the fundamental points common to the whole congregation. We established the general principles of what was then considered necessary at the level of the congregation.

Is it easy to find formators?

F. A. Ignasi: No, not easy. It’s now a real challenge both in the North and the South.

F. A. Javier: You’re not born a formator, you become one! In practice, it depends on people available in each community. Even so, finding a good formator is not an easy task. Furthermore, it’s essential to provide them with the tools they need to carry out their role successfully.

Do you have someone responsible for formation within the congregation, or a team dedicated to this task?

F. A. Ignasi: No, but there are people in charge in each province.

F. A. Javier: As such, there is no one in charge and we have no intention of taking on this role because the reality of formation is very diverse if we take into account the many differences between the monasteries of our congregation. Nevertheless, as far as our houses of study are concerned, we have an overseer who visits them regularly.

Do you encourage meetings between formators?

F. A. Ignasi: Yes, within each province.

F. A. Javier: Yes. In fact, this year, after Covid, we’re resuming the meeting of novice masters from the whole congregation. It will take place in Nairobi. In addition, we often send our formators to training programmes such as the ‘Monastic Formators’ programme or to programmes organised regionally.

As your congregations are international, is it possible for young religious from the North to go and be formed in the South? And vice versa? Are there exchanges between formators and can they move from one monastery to another to teach?

F. A. Ignasi: So far, what has been happening is that students go from South to North and teachers go from North to South, but the latter is much less common.

F. A. Javier: This is something that happens quite frequently in our congregation. Our houses of study are international and we have a large number of students at Sant’Anselmo and in other places. And as far as formators are concerned, when necessary, some communities have been helped by receiving formators from other monasteries.

Do you organise meetings between your young people? novices? young professed? students?

F. A. Ignasi: Yes, of course, but at the level of each province.

F. A. Javier: There are several programmes organised at very different levels: annual meetings of novices, depending on the region; meetings of juniors every two years; various programmes related to our missions, etc. The experience of these meetings is really positive, because it helps to unite a congregation as diverse as ours.

Which regions have the most vocations?

F. A. Ignasi: Vietnam first of all, then the Philippines, Africa and Latin America.

F. A. Javier: Basically Africa. In Europe, the decline is obvious, but not dramatic. Regions such as Asia and America are showing modest growth.

Do you have your own centre for the study of Philosophy and Theology? Do you work with other congregations, even non-Benedictine ones? Sant’Anselmo or other international centres of formation?

F. A. Ignasi: We don’t have our own centre apart from the Studium at Bouaké for French-speaking West Africa and the Studium at Montserrat for the Spanish-speaking province. Then each monastery decides. Some monasteries, like Montserrat, are able to organise the studies on their premises because they are associated with Sant’Anselmo. Others look for places to study in their own vicinity or at Sant’Anselmo.

F. A. Javier: We have two houses of study, one in Nairobi, Kenya, and the other in Lusaka, Zambia. A large number of our students are in Morogoro, Tanzania. In addition, there are several monks studying in other places, including Sant’Anselmo. There are currently around 100 monks studying there.

Do you have a common policy on abuse, abuse of authority and the like during the formation of your young members?

F. A. Ignasi: Not yet. Some monasteries are more advanced on these points and others are slower.

F. A. Javier: Unfortunately, we haven’t yet worked on anything in this area.

What do you expect from AIM in the area of formation?

F. A. Ignasi: Certainly financial aid for monks and nuns who can and want to study and who have no financial resources. There is also the question of support for the Studium in Bouaké.

F. A. Javier: Perhaps AIM can contribute to the development of issues such as the one mentioned in the previous question. The most important thing in terms of formation is to promote and organise meetings at the regional level and to pay particular attention to monasteries with few resources, both human and economic, in order to improve levels of formation. Unfortunately, we haven’t yet worked on anything in this area.

III. Economic Life

Each monastery is autonomous, but does your congregation intervene in the economic situation of the monasteries? Does it monitor them? Are the accounts presented annually?

F. A. Javier: Intervention is a very strong word and can be interpreted in several ways. Within the congregation, we have mechanisms for controlling and supervising the financial and economic situation of all the monasteries. Once a year, they are required to submit an external audit report and every four years, as part of the canonical visitation, a financial visit is made. All of this is supervised by the Council of Auditors of the congregation.

F. A. Ignasi: During the canonical visitation, we check the accounts and the economic situation over the last four years. The monasteries help each other within each province and also at the level of the congregation.

Do you have a solidarity fund? And how does it work?

F. A. Javier: Not exactly. Economic emergencies are dealt with individually and we look for solutions in which the solidarity of other communities can be called upon. In this sense, the congregation plays more of a mediation and advisory role.

F. A. Ignasi: We have a congregation Solidarity Fund. The last General Chapter asked us to draw up the statutes, which were approved by the Council of Visitors in November 2024.

Does your congregation have any resources of its own apart from the contributions from the monasteries?

F. A. Javier: No, the congregation as such functions thanks to the contributions of each monastery.

F. A. Ignasi: In recent years, yes. Even if the resources are not very large, they help a great deal to sustain the congregation.

Does your congregation organise meetings for bursars?

F. A. Javier: We are currently working on a series of workshops aimed mainly at the economic and financial formation of new bursars and superiors. In some regions of the congregation there are meetings for bursars, but so far not at the level of the congregation.

F. A. Ignasi: The congregation, no, but some provinces do.

Do you have monasteries that are managed economically by lay people?

F. A. Javier: Although it’s not yet the norm, it’s becoming more and more common for external professionals to manage part of the administration. Some monasteries already have lay people as administrators.

F. A. Ignasi: In the actual day-to-day running of the monasteries, yes, but there is always a monk who is responsible and to whom reference is made.

Do you have any advisers for financial investments, ethical investments or anything else?

F. A. Javier: This is an area in which each monastery decides for itself how to manage its resources. At the level of the congregation, we also offer this service and for this we have external advisers who manage the investments.

F. A. Ignasi: It depends on each monastery, but often there are advisers.

When a monastery is suppressed, how does the congregation intervene in the management of people and property?

F. A. Javier: To date, we have only had cases of closure of dependent monasteries, not autonomous monasteries, and it was the monasteries themselves that oversaw the process. On occasion, the help and advice of the congregation has been used.

F. A. Ignasi: Normally, everything is provided for in our Constitutions. Certain points were modified at the last General Chapter and we are awaiting approval from the Dicastery.

What happens if a monastery is bankrupt?

F. A. Javier: Although this possibility cannot be ruled out, we have never had a case to date. But we are aware that it is essential to foresee such situations and to approach the problem with sufficient time to analyse the possible alternatives, including, if necessary, the closure of the monastery.

F. A. Ignasi: In such a case, the monasteries of the province seek to help. We also ask for help from monasteries in other provinces. The congregation does not have the resources to do this.

IV. Prayer Life

Being in charge of a congregation brings with it heavy responsibilities and a good deal of travelling. What place do you find for Christ in your life?

F. A. Ignasi: Without Him at the centre of my life as a monk, the service I’ve been asked to do would be impossible.

F. A. Javier: Admittedly, the normal rhythm presupposed in monastic life does not exist in the case of an Abbot President. Despite this, the many moments of solitude involved while travelling and the problems that have to be addressed, make me realise ever more acutely the need to intensify my trust in Christ and to try to find him in the midst of a life that is busier than usual.

Do you have a list of preachers specific to your congregation?

F. A. Ignasi: No, we don’t have a list, but the monks know one another at the level of the provinces and linguistic regions.

F. A. Javier: No, we don’t have a list of preachers.

What is the rhythm of spiritual retreats in your monasteries?

F. A. Ignasi: Usually, each monastery organises a retreat of between four and seven days each year for the community and encourages moments of private retreat for the monks.

F. A. Javier: The norm establishes an annual retreat for all our communities, but it’s up to each one to decide on the form of these spiritual exercises. In addition, the communities organise specific days of retreat or community meetings to reflect on and discuss subjects close to their hearts, according to their own needs.

Do you have any members of the congregation who publish books on spirituality, write for journals or specialise in the study of the Rule of Saint Benedict?

F. A. Ignasi: Yes, and some monasteries publish reviews for study and sharing on these subjects.

F. A. Javier: The congregation as such has no specific mission to deal with spiritual matters. Once again, this is left to the discretion of each community.

Does your congregation have its own devotions?

F. A. Ignasi: That depends on each monastery, but there is no devotion specific to the congregation.

F. A. Javier: Obviously, Marian devotion is common to all our communities, which express it in different ways and at different liturgical times. Devotion to the Sacred Heart is also found in many of our monasteries.

Do you have any candidates for canonisation or beatification?

F. A. Ignasi: I don’t know of any causes for canonisation involving monks from our congregation. But I think there are causes underway in Singeverga and Montevergine.

F. A. Javier: Yes, we currently have the cause of the Korean martyrs in progress. In all, 36 martyrs, including 18 priests, 13 brothers, 3 sisters and a laywoman, died between 1949 and 1952.

Witness

Br. Joseph Benedict Donleavy, Dom John George, OSB

To find Communion in Change

Between 15-19 July 2024, a delegation of 54 monks and nuns from the houses of the English Benedictine Congregation met at Buckfast Abbey, England, for a Conference entitled: “Is this the road that leads to life? Thinking differently about change.” Monks from Peru and the USA, as well as nuns from Sweden, Ireland and as far as Australia came together in England to share this experience. The conference was organised by a committee who had been delegated at the previous General Chapter to provide the Congregation with a forum for continuing formation. The days consisted of meeting together in plenary sessions, where all were in attendance, or in smaller groups of 2, 3 or 4. There was also one role-play activity, for which we met as groups of 10.

Fr Michael Casey OCSO, of Tarrawarra Abbey, Australia, joined us for the whole week and gave us input in the form of two talks (Living in a Changing World, and The Ascesis of Monastic Leadership). Br John Mark Falkenhain of St Meinrad Archabbey, USA, joined us for one session via video-link and gave a talk entitled “Leading with authority”, which focussed on authority and obedience. Participants were told before the conference that they should be prepared not to return with information for their respective communities, but that they should go back changed for the better by the experience. This put the talks contributed by Fr Michael and Br Mark into perspective: the conferences should be listened to as a source of personal formation, as a part of a process of personal change.

Two younger monks of the Congregation have reflected on their experience of the Conference below.

Br Joseph Benedict Donleavy, Ampleforth Abbey:

The English Benedictine Congregation seems to me to be at a crossroads. Following Cor Orans, three new communities have entered our congregation: Mariavall in Sweden, Kylemore in Ireland, and Jamberoo in Australia. Minster, an English monastery of nuns, has petitioned to join, too. It was evident at the conference that the new communities have brought with them a real vitality and enthusiasm. Despite the title of the conference, it was interesting that there wasn’t a huge amount of discussion about plans for the future. Rather, the concentration was much more on how we were relating to each other. The opportunity to meet and get to know other members of the congregation better – especially those who had just joined us – was itself life-giving for me. In this sense, the way to life, I found, was by receiving it from others.

Our facilitator asked us to practise speaking from our experience, which I understood to mean describing our thoughts and feelings based on what was happening, or what had happened to us. This provided me with the opportunity to learn how to express what I was thinking, not emotionally, but by describing the emotion and the real situation that it came from. I had to learn, too, to express experience in a different way to different groups – a one-one is very different from a plenary session. I had the experience of being put in smaller groups that I would never have picked to talk with about myself. I took the opportunity to share something of my experience with these others, trusting that they would receive it in good faith. I was pleasantly surprised that they did, and sometimes responded in kind!

A personal realisation from this week was also the need for me to listen more openly to others. I often have a preconceived idea of why someone is saying what they are saying, and the role-play that we enacted made it clear that these pre-conceptions are often right! However, I realised that we all – myself included – need to feel secure enough that we can express ourselves honestly and openly in order to take part in discussions. I saw the real danger of pre-judging what people were saying, not allowing them to be who they are, and denying them the space for their sharing to be received in the group. One participant declared that “I think better with others”. I believe that I not only think better with others, but I also live better with others. This was an opportunity for me to reflect on how well I put that into practice. It was therefore an opportunity for my own personal conversion.

It might be worth saying something briefly about the role-play. Each member of the groups of ten were assigned a character. We were playing a small community of nuns who had been offered a significant sum of money from a benefactor, who was known only to one member of the group. Each nun had her own ideas about what the money should be used for, and there were three basic options: refurbish the current monastery, make a foundation or move somewhere else as a whole community. There were 4 groups enacting this role-play. None of them were able to come to a proper conclusion about what to do. The main problem was communication. Some did not want to give away their thoughts or the information they had, while others struggled to offer anything constructive and felt left out of the conversation. Others were simply determined to be awkward! Seeing such chaos (which we could all see reflected to some degree in our home communities) made it clear how important it is to develop effective communication.

Towards the end of the conference, there were some voices that expressed concern about our fragility as communities, with many changes having occurred in our monasteries over recent years, including declining numbers. One member raised the possibility of a new document for male communities (similar to Cor Orans) coming from Rome in the near future, which might necessitate changes which we are not yet brave enough to make ourselves. One thing that seemed evident from our conversations is that the better we are able to communicate with each other about our experience, our fears and our hopes, the better we will be able to face the forthcoming challenges. At this moment, it is impossible to say what my own future, the future of my community or the future of our congregation will be in concrete terms. However, I firmly believe that the more we improve our communication within and between communities, the better that future will be.

Dom John George, Community of St Gregory the Great:

That the English Benedictine Congregation is in a moment of transition is not in dispute: the statistics speak for themselves. Our communities are changing and with change comes challenge (and opportunity). It was, therefore, deeply impressive to see a cross-section of the Congregation present at the conference held at Buckfast Abbey, Devon. Abbots, Abbesses, seniors, juniors – and those in-between – Europeans and non-Europeans all found themselves speaking, listening, and sharing together. Our houses came together as ecclesiola to draw on each other’s experiences and better recognise the role we play within the universal church.

The Conference was decidedly “synodal” in character. There was no agenda or goals that took precedence. Instead, we came together as monks and nuns to know each other a little better and to establish connections among ourselves. The conference enabled participants to speak freely and honestly without the need to defend views obstinately (cf. RB3:4). This, after all, was the Congregation speaking and listening together. As one of the more junior monks at the conference, it was a great encouragement to see Benedictine listening in action in a powerful way. When we spoke, whether in the larger plenary sessions or smaller groups, I was struck by the respect shown as each person spoke from their own experience of monastic life. What emerged was a greater appreciation of the problems and challenges that face all our communities and the desire to secure a future for the Benedictine vocation in our respective countries.

It is easy for such conferences to become a distant memory, easily forgotten as we return to the demands of monastic life, but it was noticeable that many, especially the junior participants, were keenly aware of the need for the conversations and sharing to continue. As monasticism faces huge cultural and religious changes, it becomes ever more important to recognise that no one house has the solution. However, when we come together as monks and nuns, we are reminded of the value of our monastic vocation, and this challenges us to think about ways we can secure its future for a new generation.

That the English Benedictine Congregation is in a moment of transition is not in dispute: the statistics speak for themselves. Our communities are changing and with change comes challenge (and opportunity). It was, therefore, deeply impressive to see a cross-section of the Congregation present at the conference held at Buckfast Abbey, Devon. Abbots, Abbesses, seniors, juniors – and those in-between – Europeans and non-Europeans all found themselves speaking, listening, and sharing together. Our houses came together as ecclesiola to draw on each other’s experiences and better recognise the role we play within the universal church.

The Conference was decidedly “synodal” in character. There was no agenda or goals that took precedence. Instead, we came together as monks and nuns to know each other a little better and to establish connections among ourselves. The conference enabled participants to speak freely and honestly without the need to defend views obstinately (cf. RB3:4). This, after all, was the Congregation speaking and listening together. As one of the more junior monks at the conference, it was a great encouragement to see Benedictine listening in action in a powerful way. When we spoke, whether in the larger plenary sessions or smaller groups, I was struck by the respect shown as each person spoke from their own experience of monastic life. What emerged was a greater appreciation of the problems and challenges that face all our communities and the desire to secure a future for the Benedictine vocation in our respective countries.

It is easy for such conferences to become a distant memory, easily forgotten as we return to the demands of monastic life, but it was noticeable that many, especially the junior participants, were keenly aware of the need for the conversations and sharing to continue. As monasticism faces huge cultural and religious changes, it becomes ever more important to recognise that no one house has the solution. However, when we come together as monks and nuns, we are reminded of the value of our monastic vocation, and this challenges us to think about ways we can secure its future for a new generation.

Reflection

Manuel Nin i Güell, OSB

Monk of Montserrat (Spain) and Apostolic Exarch

of the Greek-Catholic Church of Greece

“Who or what is missing?”

Reflection on the presence/absence of monks in the life of the Church today

In the great moments of the history of the Christian Churches of East and West there have been presences – ‘great presences’ I would say – that have marked a specific moment in the history of one or other Christian Church: the preaching of the apostles after Christ’s resurrection; the martyrdom and martyrs of the first Christian centuries; the great exegetes and theologians of the 2nd to 5th centuries, and the theological statements – Trinitarian and Christological – of the first great ecumenical councils, from Nicea to Chalcedon ; the apostolic and missionary drive towards the Far East – India, China, Mongolia – of the Eastern Syriac Churches from the dawn of the first centuries; the expansion of monastic life in East and West, with the influence and weight of the monks and the great monastic centres in the formation and development of so many aspects of Christian liturgy. And this is true of so many periods and moments in the history of the Churches from the first and second millennia to the present day, with, and I use the term again, ‘great presences’ that have had and still have an influence on the life of the Churches.

There are certainly ‘strong presences’, but, I wonder, perhaps if there are also ‘great absences’, at least at certain periods in history. And, at this moment in the life of the Church, at least the Catholic Church, both Eastern and Western, I have been asking myself: ‘what is it? who, or what is missing?’ in the current ecclesial reflection, regarding a subject which, today, seems to be – if I may use the image – the only lifeline to hold on to, namely the subject of ‘synodality’. In an earlier text I tried to explain what, in my opinion, is not so much synodality, the synodal path, the synodal dimension of the Church..., – with all the terminology derived from the noun that gave rise to it –, but precisely going back to the original noun: what the synod is. Thus, the other terms: synodal, synodality... derive from and qualify the realities to which they are attributed; but understanding the noun and its true and proper meaning is fundamental.

Here, I’d like to go further in this reflection and try to understand and answer the question I’ve been asking : at the present time in the Church, ‘who or what is missing? And the answer, in my opinion, is to be found in the presence/absence of monks, of monastic life itself, at the present moment of the Church. To the question ‘Who or what is missing?’ I would dare to answer, if only to myself, with another question: ‘Are we not lacking monks and the experience of monastic life itself? And I take the liberty of asking this question as a bishop-monk or monk-bishop, whichever way you want to think of me.

First of all, I would like to point out that monks, from their origins in the first centuries of the Church right up to the present day, are Christians who do not like to put themselves in the spotlight, who enjoy silence, peace and distance from the world; they themselves almost never put themselves to the fore. From the outset, the monks ‘fled’ from the world, but this does not mean that their experience as men of the Church should be overlooked or put to one side, on the contrary. Because going to the Desert Fathers with the request: ‘Father, give me a word...’ is still valid and relevant.

The importance of monks and monasteries. In the great moments of theological reflection, monks were/are present. In a special way and as an example, in the iconoclastic crisis of the 8th and 9th centuries, it was the great theologian monks who signed the ‘Orthodox victory’ in what was one of the greatest theological crises of the first millennium, and therefore the consolidation in the Byzantine milieu of a style of liturgy that was strongly monastic.

‘Who or what is missing’ when monks are absent from the life of the Church today? Perhaps someone might venture to say ‘set aside’ or simply forgotten? Perhaps the humility of monks means that they don’t appear or don’t want to appear, and I don’t rule this out. The answer to my own question is not intended to be polemical, because it is true that there have been and still are monks who stand out for their contributions in various sectors of theology and the life of the Church; eminent and wise monks who took part, for example, in the Second Vatican Council and made their contribution in the liturgical sector and in the specific sector of the Roman liturgical reform.

One might ask how this came about. I’ll give a few examples from the Liturgy of the Hours in the current Roman tradition: the reduction in the number of psalms in the hours of prayer. The liitle hours reduced from three to one, depending on the region or the pastoral needs of the priests or the various parish communities. Then there is the decision – always controversial and open to debate – to ‘cut out’ or simply ‘delete’ the imprecatory verses in the psalms, or even to exclude entire psalms from psalmody or prayer.

But this ‘sacrifice’ of the psalter itself, and of the role of the psalms in prayer, is basically the result, once again, of a letting go of what should be fundamental to the life of every Church and Christian community: mystagogy. Faced with the difficulties we find in the scriptural and liturgical texts and in our own understanding of them – difficulties that exist and that no one hides – faced with these difficulties we need to develop a catechesis, indeed a true and proper mystagogy for our faithful, a mystagogy that leads them to understand and welcome in their own lives, of a way of prayer in which the psalter, a distinctive character of Christian prayer, has a fundamental place. This catechesis, this mystagogy, is vital for the survival of the liturgy of the Christian Churches. Here we can truly use with full force a phrase that has at times been overused: ‘the Church of tomorrow will be mystical or it will not be’. If, in the first centuries of the Christian Churches, the liturgical texts - whether scriptural or eucological - and the sacraments themselves in their celebration had always been easy and comprehensible for all the faithful, there would not have been, and today we would not have, the great mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodore of Mopsuestia, to mention just two great names.

I wonder whether this mystagogy is not also lacking in the Church at the moment and especially in the context of the ‘synod of bishops’ and the terminology that is used perhaps too abundantly and with which we are inundated: ‘synodality, synodal Church’. From the very first moment of the celebration of the Synod of Bishops, the lack of terminological precision and the content of the terminology used was apparent, especially to those from the Eastern Catholic Churches.

‘Who or what is missing?’ Returning to the starting point of my reflection, at a time when we want to begin a journey that claims to be an experience of synodality in the life of the Church, I have the impression that once again monks, or more precisely the opinion and experience of monks in this field – an experience that would surely be precious – are missing. Perhaps monks, men of silence and withdrawal, have remained in their desert, in their solitude? This may also be the case, but from the desert they have always had, and should have today, a word to say and to give.

In the West, monasticism is perhaps not fashionable these days. Today, religious orders and movements with strong missionary and apostolic tendencies, hierarchically organised and centralised, have a ‘front-line combat’ position in the life of the Church. And someone may simply ask: ‘What do monks do? The answer is easy and is one that history has given and continues to give: they are men of silence, of prayer, of solitude and communion. They are men, I would dare to call, ‘nocturnal’, who, in the darkness of night or at dawn, get up and, what do they do? Simply, and no less, than picking up the psalter, the David as the Syriac tradition also calls it, this book of ancient prayers, Jewish in their origin, made Christian by Christ himself when he prayed them with his hands stretched out on the cross, prayers still made Christian today by the monks themselves who see and find in them the voice of Christ, the voice of the Church, the cry of humanity itself, and make them become their own prayer. Prayers embraced by these men of the night, who for centuries have been keeping them alive, praying with them every night, every morning, every evening and throughout the day. These men who live in the darkness of the night, waiting for dawn, in silence, in fraternity, like to act, like to live truly in synodal mode. They know, because they learned it the first day they knocked on the door of the monastery, with whom they are journeying, why they are journeying, towards where they are journeying, with whom they are journeying together.

Monasteries and monks in the East and West are for the whole Church, for all Christians, a true and real example of life in synod (I prefer to use the noun rather than the adjective) and not only because the abbot, the father and pastor of the community, brings together the monks, all the brothers of this family that is the monastery, listens to them, engages them in a true and real collegiality in the daily life of the monastery - the abbot summons, listens to all... - but above all because they themselves know with whom, for whom and towards where they are journeying. The monastery is not a parliamentary democracy where everyone decides everything, but a place for listening, under the guidance and the word of the abbot, and is, like the Church itself, the true and only Body of Christ. A monastery/body in which each member has his own role, all of them guided by the abbot, by the one who is the father, the head, the shepherd, the guide and therefore the vicar of the One who is the true Head, the Shepherd, the Guide, in other words Christ the Lord.

‘Who and what is missing?’ In my previous paragraph I sought to clarify the meaning of the noun ‘Synod’ and to emphasise that it is not a question of ‘everyone walking together...’, but rather of ‘everyone walking with Christ...’. Of this real and true ‘synodal journey’ the monks are - at least in this, surely - experts. The monasteries and the very journey of the Christian Churches, as I pointed out, are not and cannot be governed like a kind of ‘parliamentary decision-making democracy’. In monasteries, it is up to the abbot, the pastor, together with all the monks, to reflect and decide. The monastery, the life of the monks, is always a true and real example of what the synod is, what the journey with Christ should be, under the guidance of the community’s pastor, in listening to the Word of God, in sacramental life, in the celebration of faith and in fraternal communion.

‘Who and what is missing?’ Perhaps the experience of this real and true synod that is the life of every Christian monastery could help us to find an answer today. The word of monks, from the desert Fathers in their apophthegms to today, has always been a clear word, always sharp like a double-edged sword, and at the same time always a humble word of communion and of the Gospel. To listen, to involve monks, is not to remove them from their silence, from their ‘obscurity’, but rather to listen to the word that springs from their silence and their prayer, that springs from that David who, every morning, makes them repeat insistently: ‘Hear my prayer, O Lord; incline your ear to my supplication...’

A page of History

Mr. Jérôme de Leusse, Doctor of History

President of the Benedictus Foundation under the auspices of Caritas France

The Council of Nicaea

In this jubilee year, the Church celebrates the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, which took place in the spring and early summer of 325.

This celebration is of great significance for the Christian world. The Nicene Creed is a bond of unity of a common faith between the major Christian Churches, shared between the world of the Reformation, Orthodoxy (with the important nuance of the Filioque added by Charlemagne) and Catholicism. Nicaea also reformed the life and organisation of the Church. Beyond the council itself, the historical context had a lasting influence on the life of the Church.

The Crisis of the Third Century

In 325, the Roman Empire dominated the Mediterranean basin and much of Europe. However, this Roman Empire was no longer the same as it had been in its early days. Between 235, the end of the Severan dynasty, and 284, the accession of Diocletian, the Empire was marked by coups d’état, military pronunciamientos, usurpations and assassinations of emperors, as well as civil wars. It seemed to be faltering at its foundations.

This crisis of power was compounded by pressure from barbarians at the borders and a series of military defeats. The Goths were putting pressure on the Rhine and Danube, while the Persians were attacking in the East. Provinces throughout the Empire were ravaged by invasion. The Roman army was unable to contain the invaders.

A serious economic crisis ensued. Goods no longer circulated properly, prices rose, and the population became impoverished.

There was also a religious and moral crisis. Within the Empire, Christians were seen as troublemakers. Christianity was a source of concern for those in power. If they refused to worship the image of the emperor, they became enemies within. In 250, Emperor Decius launched a general persecution of Christians. The persecution went hand in hand with the desire to restore the Empire.

The Restoration of the Empire through Dictatorship and Religious Policy

This desire to restore the empire was realised when a general from Illyria (modern-day Croatia) seized power. Diocletian became Emperor Augustus in 284 and quickly created a system with two, then four emperors: the Tetrarchy. They worked in pairs, one in the West (an Augustus and a Caesar) and another in the East. Diocletian and Maximian were Augustus, and Constantius Chlorus (Constantine’s father) and Galerius were Caesar.

Border security was quickly restored. They reformed the army and restored civil peace within the empire. They were present separately in hot spots. They had different geographical areas of government. They restored prosperity by fighting inflation with an edict freezing prices and wages in 301.

The recovery of the Roman Empire came at the cost of a severe dictatorship that forced everyone to remain in their social class, heavily increased taxation and severely punished those who violated imperial edicts. The punishment was death or deportation to the mines, which was really a concentration camp system.

From 287 onwards, the emperors each took a title. Diocletian took the title of Jovian (descendant of Jupiter) and Maximian took the title of Herculian (descendant of Hercules). The aim, as under Decius, was to strengthen imperial unity through religion. The emperors were worshipped through the rite of Proskynesis: prostration before them and the kissing of the purple cloak. Their images were incensed, and the rooms of the palace where they ruled became sanctuaries. The advent of an emperor was a natalis imperri, a birth into the divine order, an ortus, a sunrise.

Very quickly, Christians appeared to be an obstacle to this unity. They did not offer sacrifices to the images of emperors. Since Decius, the Church had lived in peace, without any persecution. Its followers were very numerous in the Empire. There was even a Church opposite the imperial palace of Nicomedia in the East. High-ranking officials of the Empire had become Christians. In 303 and 304 the persecution began. Churches were destroyed, holy books, vases and often precious objects of worship were confiscated, and people were forced to offer sacrifices to the images of the emperors under pain of death, atrocious torture or deportation to the mines. There were many martyrs. The persecution lasted in the East until 311, and even 313 in some places. In the West, it was weaker and much shorter (305). It then resumed sporadically in the East at the end of the reign of Licinius in 324.

The Constantinian Revolution

In 305, Diocletian abdicated and forced Maximian to do the same. The two Caesars, Constantius Chlorus and Galerius, became Augusti, the former in the West and the latter in the East. The Caesars were deliberately chosen from outside the families of the two Augusti, Severus and Maximinus Daza. This led to a revolt by the sons of Constantius and Maximian. Upon Constantius’ death in 306, Constantine in northern Britain (United Kingdom) was proclaimed emperor by the legions. Maxentius, son of Maximian, also proclaimed himself emperor, and Maximian returned to power to support his son. A civil war ensued until 313.

Constantius Chlorus and then Constantine in the West did not persecute Christians (apart from some destruction of churches in 303-305). Galerius and Maximinus Daza in the East were fanatical persecutors. Maxentius and Severus were also persecutors.

Constantine, an Emperor with Great Religious Questions: from Sol Invictus to Christianity

Constantine had an undeniable religious thirst and, before his conversion to Christianity, he appeared to be a pagan emperor but one who had broken with the religious symbols of the Tetrarchy from which he had been excluded. Constantine’s coinage featured the god Mars, the peacemaker sun. Constantine is even said to have benefited from an epiphany (manifestation) of the god Apollo (like the Emperor Augustus). Constantine’s beliefs were therefore a mixture of religious propaganda, personal quest and political opportunism. His mother, Empress Helena, was probably already a Christian. This explains the limited persecution carried out by his father, Constantius Chlorus. His gradual conversion to Christianity must be understood in the context of this mixture of personal search and the role played by politics. This conversion took place in stages, in 312 and 313, then in 324-25, and finally with his baptism shortly before his death in 337. Constantine ended the last years of his reign as a devout believer, repenting for the murders he had committed.

Constantine’s Victory at the Milvian Bridge (312) and the Edict of Milan (313)

In 312, Constantine took the first official step towards conversion. Constantine experienced a new divine epiphany on the eve of a battle. He won the Battle of Milvian Bridge, where he eliminated his rival Maxentius and took Rome. It was the Christian God who manifested himself. A sign appeared to him (for some in a dream, for other panegyrists a visible sign in the sky). This sign is the Chi-Rho (two letters of the Greek alphabet meaning Christ) which symbolises Christ. He hears the phrase: ‘By this sign you will conquer’. He has this sign placed on the soldiers’ shields and on the Labarum, the imperial flag. The next day, he wins the battle. Constantine’s triumphal arch in Rome expresses divine support without explicitly referring to the Christian God. But as early as 313, the first panegyric in Milan evoked this episode. In 315, the first coins were minted with the Chi-Rho. In 313, Constantine and Licinius, his colleague, published an edict of tolerance towards Christians. Licinius ruled in the East and Constantine in the West. This marked the end of persecution, and the restitution of property was put into effect. The edict was applied throughout the Empire. But from 317 to 324, the religious policies of the two emperors diverged, until Constantine’s final victory over Licinius.

Constantine’s Religious Policy: Christianity goes from being a persecuted religion to an authorised religion

Gradually, the pagan (solar) themes disappeared from Constantine’s coinage between 320 and 324. Constantine began to establish legislation favourable to Christianity. He took restrictive measures against certain aspects of paganism (in particular magic and certain private cults and sacrifices). However, Constantine still bore the title of Pontifex Maximus, the highest dignity in the Roman religion held by emperors since Augustus.

After his victory over Licinius in 324, he closed certain temples and tried, unsuccessfully, to ban circus games, gladiatorial fights and prisoners being thrown to wild beasts. But he maintained the official pagan cults and the official pagan religion.

Imperial policy towards Christianity changed considerably after he came to power in 312. From 313-315, the Church had an official status. The Church, as the ‘corpus christianorum’, could become the owner of property and could inherit. The Church was granted tax exemptions (privileges that pagan temples had never had). Christians could free slaves in churches from 316-321 onwards. The acts of emancipation published by the Church had official value. Bishops were given jurisdiction over civil law between Christians. Thus, ecclesiastical courts were created. In March 321, Constantine made the dies Solis (dies dominicus for Christians) a public holiday. The celebration of Sunday transformed the rhythm of life for people throughout the Empire. From 312 onwards, the emperor exempted the Christian clergy from public office and service to the state and municipalities, as well as from taxation. The clergy had official status. The emperor encouraged conversions to Christianity, particularly among Jews. The emperor supported the ecclesiastical courts that condemned heretics.

The Emperor’s First Interventions in the Life of the Church: the Donatist Crisis in Africa and the Council of Arles

From 313 onwards, Constantine intervened in the life of the Church to try to resolve conflicts. First in Africa, where his edict to restore property seized during the persecution ran into the problem of knowing to whom it should be returned. The Church in Africa was divided between those who advocated strict punishment for traitors (traditores), led by the Bishop of Numidia, Donatus, and the rest of the Church, which was more tolerant. Constantine wanted to put an end to the Donatist schism. He charged the Bishop of Rome with resolving the schism. The Pope surrounded himself with Italian and Gallic bishops. Donatus was condemned. The Donatists contested the decision, and Constantine referred the matter to an episcopal tribunal comprising the bishops of the West. The meeting took place in Arles in an imperial palace with nine Italian bishops, twelve from Gaul and Germania, three from Britain (United Kingdom), six from Hispania, plus the African bishops from both sides. The Council of Arles condemned the Donatists once again. The Donatists appealed the sentence to the Emperor, prompting his direct intervention. After much procrastination and having met with both parties himself, Constantine condemned the Donatists and returned the property of the Church of Africa to the Catholics. In 317, imperial persecution fell upon the Donatists and their blood was shed. The Donatist crisis lasted practically until the end of the 4th century.

The Ecclesiastical Advisor Osius, Bishop of Cordoba

Constantine had an ecclesiastical advisor: Ossius, Bishop of Cordoba. Ossius was born in 256 in Cordoba, where he was bishop from 295. He died in exile in 357 in Sirmium because of his opposition to the pro-Arian policy of Constantine’s son. Osius played a major role in Constantine’s pro-Christian policy, in the fight against Donatism in Africa, and then in the fight against Arianism, first at the Council of Nicaea and then throughout his life. Constantine later had other ecclesiastical advisors, such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, and his religious policy suffered as a result.

The Beginning of the Arian Crisis in Egypt: the difficulty of understanding the Holy Trinity, the one God

Until this crisis, theology was based on the very words of Scripture, which sometimes seem contradictory. From the beginning of the Church, theologians have stumbled over an apparent contradiction: the transcendence of the one God pushed Judeo-Christians, in order not to be accused by the Jews of worshipping two gods, to minimise the divinity of Christ and even, for some, to assert that He is only a creature.

Christians who minimised the divinity of Christ existed in various forms since the 2nd century. They were known as Subordinationists. The Church as a whole remained faithful to the faith of the Apostles and affirmed that Christ was a divine person. But words failed, faith was poorly expressed, and it was difficult to challenge those who denied the divinity of Christ. At the same time, at the end of the second century, a theologian named Sabellius, in order to combat this theology, created another one called modalism. God takes on different ‘faces,’ or prosopon in Greek. He is Father for creation, Son for redemption, and Spirit for sanctification. This was another heresy, since God is not really one in three distinct persons, and this simplistic position ultimately denied the true incarnation of the Son. Pope Callistus and Tertullian condemned this modalist thinking.

In the Third Century: the debate between East and West to clarify the place of Christ

This debate was mainly present in the West and was therefore conducted in Latin (Tertullian). Origen, who headed the theological school of Alexandria in the middle of the 3rd century, explained that the Father eternally begets the Son. He distinguished three hypostases or even three ousiai in the one God. But Origen’s theology gave way to a subordinatianist interpretation taken up by Bishop Denis of Alexandria between 250 and 264. Pope Denis, in Rome, challenged the thinking of the Bishop of Alexandria and used the Greek term homoousios, the single substance of the divine persons who are One. This Greek term is not found in the Scriptures and poses a huge problem for many theologians and bishops. Can the Trinity be defined with words that do not come from the Holy Scriptures? The debate between Pope Denis and Bishop Denis raises several words – hypostasis, ousia, homoousios – which will be central words in the Arian controversy. The use of Greek philosophy and its vocabulary to try to define dogma was revolutionary.

Denis of Alexandria ultimately agreed with Denis of Rome’s interpretation, but his successive interpretations caused harm and set a precedent. This dispute over the relationship between the Father and the Son was compounded in Antioch by questions about the true nature of the Logos incarnate. Is Jesus fully God, but incarnate, or is he fully man? Lucian of Antioch, a theologian, taught that the Logos had assumed only a human body but not a soul. The bishop of Antioch, Eustathius, combated Lucian’s theology by asserting that the Logos assumed the nature of a complete man. It was within the Church of Alexandria that the priest Arius revived subordinatianist ideas around 320.

The Personality of Arius

Born around 256 in Cyrenaica and died in 336 in Constantinople, Arius was trained in theology by Lucian of Antioch, who was a subordinatianist. Arius was present in Alexandria during the persecution between 303 and 313. He was ordained a deacon by Bishop Peter of Alexandria (who was martyred in 311), then a priest by his successor Achillas. He was an austere man, an ascetic, a great preacher, a spiritual director, and was respected and followed by the Christians of Alexandria. He knew how to convey his thoughts in words that resonated with the Christian people.

The Theology of Arius

He wrote to his bishop Alexander: ‘We confess one God, one begotten, one eternal, one without beginning, one true, one possessing immortality, one wise, one good, one powerful.’ He describes God as a ‘Monad,’ meaning ‘absolute perfect unity,’ a term borrowed from Plato. Arius relied heavily on philosophical vocabulary and defined Christ in negative terms in relation to the Father. For him, the Son was an exceptional creature, but still a creature. He emphasised Christ’s humanity to highlight the Son’s inferiority to the Father. For him, the Spirit was also a creature. Arius used the Scriptures with an erroneous interpretation. It was probably around 318-320 that Arius began to publicly develop his theses. He was supported by seven priests and twelve deacons from Alexandria and also by two bishops, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica (both in Cyrenaica).

The Crisis Spreads throughout the East

His book The Thalia reached the masses, and the dockers and artisans of Alexandria turned it into songs. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria reacted and opposed Arius. He used the Scriptures and also the teachings of Origen. He asked Arius to retract his thesis. Arius refused and sought the support of Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, a powerful prelate, relative of the praetorian prefect and friend of Constantia, the emperor’s sister. A council in Alexandria excommunicated Arius and his followers. The Palestinian bishops around Eusebius of Caesarea, but also those of Bithynia (Nicaea and Chalcedon) and Eusebius of Nicomedia, supported Arius. The crisis spread to the East. Arius’ appeal to the bishops against his bishop was contrary to tradition, and an Egyptian council of 100 bishops condemned Arius. The bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem and Tripoli supported the bishop of Alexandria against Arius. A sophist, Asterios, wrote a dialectical work to defend Arius’s theses. In two opposing local councils, the two parties excommunicated each other (in Caesarea and Antioch). Within five years, all Christians in the eastern Mediterranean were divided into two completely opposing camps.

The Council of Nicaea: An ecumenical and imperial council held from spring to summer 325

Constantine, who had just restored imperial unity to his advantage after his victory in 324 over Emperor Augustus Licinius in the East, wanted religious unity in his empire. He was the only Augustus emperor with his two sons, Crispus and Constantine II, bearing the title of Caesar. From 324 onwards, the last pagan symbols disappeared from his coins.

After trying to resolve the Donatist crisis in Africa, he wanted to resolve the Arian crisis in the East. The unity of the Church was of exemplary value. It was to serve as a model for civil peace. He wanted unity in prayer for the salvation of the Empire. It was most certainly his ecclesiastical advisor, Ossius of Cordoba, who suggested that he convene a general council. Previously, Constantine had attempted to mediate between Alexander of Alexandria and Arius. Ossius had delivered the Emperor’s letter. Constantine’s attempt failed.

The council was convened by Constantine. The participants benefitted from the imperial postal service to travel there. The imperial administration was responsible for the practical organisation. The city of Nicaea was chosen after much hesitation over the location. Nicaea was easily accessible by sea and close (50 km) to Nicomedia, where the emperor’s residence was located. The letter of convocation was sent by Constantine to all of Christendom at the beginning of 325.

The emperor was present at the opening of the council on 20 May 325. He sat on a golden throne, and the bishops present sat on either side of him in the council hall. The emperor was a catechumen and waited for the bishops to take their seats before sitting down himself. This was a sign of respect. The opening speech was probably read by Eusebius of Caesarea or perhaps Eustathius of Antioch (two of the most important bishops of the East). Then the emperor spoke to welcome the participants, and finally Ossius of Cordoba certainly spoke as well.

There were between 250 and 318 participants, mainly Eastern council fathers. This was a considerable number. Pope Sylvester, who was too old to attend, was represented by two priests: Bitus and Vincentius. Cecillianus of Carthage, a bishop from Die and a bishop from Calabria were the only Westerners present besides Ossius. There were also ten bishops from Illyria and a few bishops from outside the Empire (one Persian, one bishop from the Caucasus, and several from Pontus and Gothia). The emperor did not attend all the debates and did not participate in the work of the council fathers. He was often represented by a high-ranking palace official, Philoumenos, who monitored the debates and counted the votes. The palatine administration intervened behind the scenes with the various ecclesiastical parties that asked its assistance. Greek was the language of the debates. The Westerners, hampered by the language barrier, participated little, as did Constantine himself.

Debates and Decisions

Apart from the Arian question, the council had to debate and resolve several schisms within the Eastern Churches. The Melitians in Egypt (who contested the primacy of the See of Alexandria over the Church in Egypt), the Quartodecimans (who still used the Jewish calendar, celebrating Easter on the 14th day of the month of Nisan) and the Novatians (who refused to reinstate and forgive the lapsi, those who had betrayed the Church and the faith during the persecutions). Finally, there was the question of ecclesiastical discipline regarding the intervention of the Syrian bishops or those from the province of Asia in the affairs of the Church of Egypt.

The debates revealed a very strong anti-Arian majority. All theological currents were represented at the council. The Subordinatianists around Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (and Arius) were an active and agitated minority. Close to them, but more moderate in their position, were Eusebius of Caesarea and about twenty Palestinian bishops. Ossius of Cordoba and Alexander of Alexandria, supported by Macarius of Jerusalem, were followed by the majority of the council, especially since Eustathius of Antioch joined them. Finally, there was Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, who held an extreme anti-subordinationist position.

The council began its deliberations with the examination of the case of Arius. A letter from Eusebius of Nicomedia, a fervent Arian, was read before the council. He wrote that by claiming that the Son is begotten and not created, one would end up maintaining that He is consubstantial with the Father and that the Ousia of the Father would then be divided into two parts. It was therefore the Subordinationists who, in order to contest this, were the first to use the terms ousia and consubstantial. The reading of Arius’ poem The Thalia convinced the council of the heresy of his theses. The fathers covered their ears and refused to listen any longer to this blasphemous text.

Drafting of the Nicene Creed

The drafting of what we call the Nicene Creed was desired by a majority of the council after the condemnation of Arius and his theses. The council wanted a clear text to prevent any misinterpretation of the Trinity. The Arians, under the pretext of tradition, did not want it. The text had to be based on a solid scriptural tradition. Each side opposed texts against texts from the Scriptures. It was necessary to find a formula that affirmed without ambiguity the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father. The Greek word Homoousios, which was not in the Scriptures and was used in philosophy by the Gnostics, greatly bothered the Fathers, who were reluctant to use it. But this Greek word had the advantage of being very close to the word used by Westerners: substantia, since Tertullian, at the beginning of the third century, had spoken of ‘unity of substance.’ Finally, it was the word chosen to define the relationship between the Son and the Father: consubstantial.

The small group of theologians, who probably drafted this Credo so that it could be adopted by the Council Fathers in plenary session, were undoubtedly inspired by a Credo used in the Church of Caesarea. They used strong words to describe the Father, creator of all things visible and invisible, and especially the Son, ‘only Lord, of the ousia of the Father (homoousios), God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.’ They insisted that the Son is fully God and that there is no hierarchy between the persons of the Trinity. The Word is begotten, not made. The council confessed its faith in the Holy Spirit in a short sentence, and it was at the end of the 4th century in Constantinople that the Creed was completed.

The Creed was adopted by a large majority, with the opposition of 22 bishops (some Egyptians, Syrians and bishops from Asia Minor). Constantine reacted violently and considerably reduced the number of opponents. Only Arius, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica refused to recognise the new creed. They were immediately sent into exile as rebels against the Emperor. Later, at the end of 325, the bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were also sent into exile in Gaul for sheltering Arian priests. Eusebius of Caesarea, who was suspected not only of complicity with Arius but also of sympathy towards the late Emperor Licinius, was also under serious threat. Thus Constantine wanted to make it clear to the rebels that they should not oppose the Emperor.

Other measures of the Council

The Fathers sought to establish a new ecclesiastical discipline appropriate to the Church’s new situation following Constantine’s victory. Strict rules were laid down for the selection of a bishop, who must be consecrated by at least three bishops and, if possible, by all the bishops of his ecclesiastical province (canon 4). Canon 4 refers to the Metropolitan for episcopal consecration. Those who do not have perfect physical or moral integrity are not to be admitted to the clergy. Canon 1 excludes from the clergy those who have voluntarily castrated themselves, and canon 9 those who have committed a serious offence requiring public reconciliation. Canon 2 stipulates that members of the clergy must receive formation. The council condemns usury among clerics since they enjoy tax immunities (canon 7). Canon 12 prohibits those who have entered the clergy by a calling of faith and left the service of the Emperor from subsequently leaving the clergy: incompatibility between the militia (service) of the prince and that of Christ.

The canons also establish an organisation of the Church in the eastern part of the Empire. Organisation into ecclesiastical provinces around the metropolitan. The provinces must hold biannual synods, including one before Lent (canon 5). These synods must allow for appeals against the decisions or sentences of a bishop. Canon 6 is more specifically devoted to the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch, of which the Fathers recall their effective primacy from a religious point of view. Jerusalem has a primacy of honour, but the metropolitan see remains Caesarea. The see of Rome also has primacy over the West and a primacy of honour in the East.

Another topic was the reconciliation of the lapsi, those who had betrayed their faith and the Church during the persecutions. A middle ground had to be found between those who totally refused their reinstatement and therefore forgiveness, and reinstatement as if nothing had happened. Canon 10 excludes illegally ordained lapsi from the clergy. The faithful lapsi who had apostatised were set apart for 10 years. The dying would still receive viaticum.

The Novatians, who called themselves the pure, were reintegrated into the Church through a penitential rite and the laying on of hands, and they had to commit to renouncing their intolerance. Their clerics are reinstated into the hierarchy and their bishops can become Chorepiscopi of a Catholic bishop. For the heterodox ‘Paulianists’ of the Church of Antioch, canon 19 provides that they receive baptism again and the clerics are ordained again. This was contrary to the customary law of the Church at the time. The council also took measures regarding the Melitians in Egypt. Melitios was stripped of all his priestly prerogatives. His clergy could be reinstated by the laying on of hands but would remain in the background in the hierarchy of the Church of Egypt.

The Council of Nicaea sought to bring order to the eastern dioceses, which had been disrupted by long periods of persecution. It succeeded, but only in the long term, as these various schisms and heresies (particularly Arianism) often persisted after the council and despite imperial injunctions.

The last issue addressed by the council was at the behest of Constantine, who insisted that Easter be celebrated on the same date everywhere. In Asia Minor, the date of Easter followed the Jewish calendar. In Egypt, as in Rome, Easter followed the solstice. But the two calculations of the movable feast were not exactly the same. The two calculations remained different, but the council abandoned the reference to the Jewish calendar.

Closing and the ‘Bishop from Outside’:

Constantine personally announced the decisions of the council throughout the Empire. The closing of the council on 25 July 325 coincided with the twentieth anniversary of his accession to the throne. The Council Fathers were received at the imperial palace. They were given military honours and the Emperor offered them a banquet. At this banquet, over which he presided, he explained that he was ‘the bishop from outside’ (tôn ektôn). He thus gave himself an ecclesiastical role that marked the relationship between Church and State for centuries.

The Evolution of Imperial Policy and the Arian Crisis

Within ten years, Constantine completely changed his religious policy and turned in favour of Arianism, which he maintained until his death. This reversal took place fairly quickly after the council. The Arians’ muted opposition to the council’s decisions forced the emperor to intervene. The emperor and the senior administration took up theology, as did Magister Philoumenos, Prefect Ablabius, and Praetorian Prefect Flavius Philippos. With Ossius of Cordoba having returned to his diocese in the West, Constantine surrounded himself with other ecclesiastical advisers. In 327, Constantine was leaning towards conciliation and appeasement between the Arians and the Catholics. Helena, his mother, and Constantia, his sister, supported the Arians and influenced him. In 326 Constantine had ordered the execution of his son Crispus and his son’s stepmother Fausta (they were plotting against him). This family drama had weakened the emperor morally, and the council had not really resolved the conflict. Constantine probably gathered a small number of Eastern bishops. Arius, in an ambiguous letter that did not contest the Nicene Creed, obtained his pardon. The exiles were allowed to return. Eusebius of Nicomedia was a distant relative of the imperial family, and Constantia pleaded his case. In 328, he was able to return from Gaul.

From then on, the Arians were able to develop their arguments to bring down the ‘Nicene’ bishops. Eusebius of Caesarea led the fight. Between 327 and 335, all the Nicene bishops were gradually sent into exile, but never officially for theological reasons. The most famous of the bishops to be driven from his seat was Athanasius of Alexandria, Alexander’s successor since 328, who was exiled to Trier by Constantine in 335 after a council held in Tyre and then in Jerusalem, where Arius was declared orthodox.

Arius’ disciples in the East triumphed, and everywhere those who had supported and approved the Nicene Creed were finally driven from their episcopal seats. Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia became the ecclesiastical advisors to the emperor and the imperial family. They were the first figures of courtier and political bishops.

Constantine finally allowed Arianism to triumph. The followers of Arius (who died in 336) were received into full communion in 335 at a local council in Jerusalem. But officially, the Nicene Creed was not called into question, and Constantine, a catechumen, clearly did not see the differences in faith between the protagonists in the affair. At the end of his life, Constantine became devout; he was surrounded by priests and bishops, and had himself depicted slaying a dragon with a spear or praying with his eyes turned towards heaven. He had the Holy Scriptures read to him and prayed in the chapel of his palace. On Sundays, ceremonies were held in the palace with great pomp and ceremony. In 337, he demanded freedom for Christians from the Persians and declared war on Persia, expressing his faith. Victorious, thanks to his cousin Hannibalianus who led the Roman army, he made peace at Easter 337. Sick, he confessed his sins, took the white garment and was baptised at Easter 337 by Eusebius of Nicomedia. He died a neophyte at Pentecost 337.

The development of Arianism in the East and in the Barbarian World

After Constantine, the policy under his Eastern successors was generally favourable to Arianism. In the West, the Nicene faith was the rule until 353. In 353, Constantius II (Constantine’s son, who ruled the East) became sole emperor and attempted to impose Arianism on the West, which had remained Nicene. In the 350s, some episcopal sees in the West converted to Arianism, such as Sirmium (in Serbia), Arles, Béziers and Milan (until 374). Non-Arian bishops were exiled. The Arian faith suited him: if Jesus was the reflection of the Father, he could represent Christ on earth and become the Bishop of bishops.

Between 350 and 360, there was a series of small local councils, all pro-Arian, convened by Constantius II. But Arianism gradually divided. The Homoean tendency confessed that the Son was similar to the Father (homoios). This was the tendency that Constantius II almost always favoured. Another tendency appeared from 350 onwards: those who said that the Son was totally dissimilar to the Father, the Anomoeans (anomoios). Finally, there was a very moderate form of Arianism. These were the Arians who professed that the Son was similar to the Father in substance (homoiousios), the Homoeousians. From 358 onwards, these Homoeousians gradually moved closer to the Nicene Christians. Hilary of Poitiers and Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia came from this theological movement.

During this post-Nicene period, when Arianism seemed to be triumphant, many Catholic priests and bishops continued to profess the Nicene faith.

The fight against Arianism was continued in the East by the great Cappadocian bishops: Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom. But it was with the accession to the imperial throne of a Roman general, Theodosius, originally from Spain, who was proclaimed Emperor Augustus in 379 by Emperor Gratian, that the Nicene faith triumphed. Both emperors, Theodosius in the East and Gratian in the West, were Nicene Christians. On 28 February 380 in Thessalonica, they proclaimed in an edict: ‘All peoples must rally to the faith transmitted to the Romans by the Apostle Peter, that which is recognised by Pontiff Damasus and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, that is to say, the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...’ Catholicism became the state religion. In the edict, pagans and heretics were threatened with exclusion from civil society. In 381, Theodosius convened a council in Constantinople. For the first time in 50 years, the Church was reunited. The council clarified the Nicene Creed by specifying that Christ’s reign would have no end (Luke 1:33) and added a long discussion on the Holy Spirit under the influence of Gregory of Nazianzus, but above all the writings of Basil of Caesarea. The divinity of the Spirit was affirmed by the expression ‘proceeding from the Father’ and was to be glorified and worshipped together with the Father and the Son. The Three Persons were consubstantial. The rest of the council dealt with disciplinary matters. Ambrose of Milan was charged with restoring the Nicene faith in Illyria. It took several years to reduce the last pockets of Arianism in the Empire.

An Arian bishop of Gothic origin, Ulfila, who participated in the Council of Nicaea, firmly established Arianism among the Goths, Alamanni, Burgundians and Vandals. When the Goths and other barbarian peoples invaded the western part of the Roman Empire (406), they reintroduced Arianism into the Empire, but the Romans remained Catholic. Arianism was considered, along with paganism (the Franks, Suebi, Angles and Saxons were pagans), to be the religion of the invaders. The Suebi in Spain, under the influence of the Visigoths, converted to Arianism in 460.

Arianism gradually died out in the West during the 6th century. Under the influence of Clovis’ conversion to Catholicism, which brought him the support of the Romans and the Roman administration, many barbarians joined the Catholic faith. Arianism remained the state religion of the Burgundians until 516. The king of the Visigoths in Hispania converted to Catholicism in 587. In 589, a council in Toledo integrated the Arian clergy into the Catholic clergy. Arianism remained the state religion of the Lombards until the 7th century.

Nicaea was the first in a series of councils defining Catholic doctrine. The Council of Ephesus in 431 defined Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God, since Jesus is a divine person). The Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, who refused to believe in the real suffering of the Word at the time of the Passion and refused to believe that a creature, Mary, had given birth to God. Finally, in 451, the Council of Chalcedon affirmed the dual nature of Christ, fully God and fully man. The aim was to combat the Monophysite heresy professed by Eutyches.

Conclusion

The 4th century was a decisive century in the history of Christianity. By becoming an official religion and then a state religion, Christianity was forced to become increasingly structured. As it became the religion of the majority, it was necessary to refine the definitions of dogma to avoid digressions. By adopting the methods, words and culture of Greek philosophy, Christianity became deeply inculturated in the civilisation of the Mediterranean basin, which allowed for a deeper understanding of Christian thought and a lasting fusion of Jewish and Greek influences in our civilisation.

The Council of Nicaea defined the doctrine of the Trinity and unified the entire Christian world for a very long time.

Finally, this first ecumenical council was fundamental in enabling the Church to reform itself. The use of local synods also remained in the East and shaped the Eastern Churches.

The importance assumed by emperors in resolving theological debates and ecclesiastical discipline had a profound impact on the Church. In the West, Charlemagne’s modification of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is a striking example of this. The Western Church freed itself from the control of political power at the end of the 11th century with the famous Investiture Controversy and the victory of Blessed Pope Gregory VII over Emperor Henry at Canossa. It was the popes of the 11th century, most of whom were Benedictine monks of the Order of Cluny, who led this fight against the secular control of the Church. The Eastern Churches found it very difficult to cut the cord. And for some, such as the Russian Church, it is still unbroken.

Great figures of monastice life

Dom David Tomlins, ocso

Abbot Emeritus of Tarrawara (Australia)

Dom Kevin O’Farrell

(1919-2006)

Dom Kevin O’Farrell (1919-2006) was never a mover and shaker on the wider monastic stage. Nor was it ever his desire. He was, for thirty years (1958-1988), the (first) Abbot of Tarrawarra. That was it! He once expressed his understanding of his particular call as “a basic sense of a commitment to the community, which would manifest itself in my making the community the real centre of my whole life”.

“What is vital for the abbot”, he wrote, “is to remind himself that the Heavenly Father has given him a definite work to do… not to be a remarkable figure in the Church, a shining light, but rather to serve with all his energies this particular group of men chosen by the Father”.

Indeed, Kevin embodied the triple priority of the Cistercian Founders, Robert, Alberic and Stephen, as a lover of the Rule of St Benedict, a lover of the brethren, and a lover of the place.

“I was born on St Patrick’s Day in the year 1919. By a series of coincidences, my birth was in St Patrick’s nursing home on St Patrick’s Hill in the city of Cork, Ireland. I was baptised in a nearby church – St Patrick’s also! Inevitably I was called Patrick”.

The recitation of this “inevitability” appealed to his abiding sense of humour. He acquired the name of Kevin, another top ranking Irish saint, as a monk at Roscrea.

His father was Maurice O’Farrell who married three times, re-marriage being an imperative as his first two wives died in childbirth leaving him with young children. There were three families, fourteen children. Patrick was the first child of the second family; his younger sister, Mary, became Sr Kevin at the Irish Cistercian community of Glencairn. His mother was Agnes Daly. Her brother John became a Cistercian priest (Fr Anthony Daly) at Mt St Joseph Abbey Roscrea, and, for a time, a member of the Abbot General’s council in Rome. His mother’s death when he was a young boy of three left him with a lasting sense of loss. He wrote years later of his father: “Well before he married again, he had become a father and mother to me and this would never change. I was almost inseparable from him”. Augusta, his stepmother, said on her deathbed: “You know his father was quite crazy about him as a child”. He wrote: “One of the greatest gifts I have received from God is that of always being loved”. This experience of knowing he was loved was central to his identity and to his contribution to others.

Patrick grew up in Shanballymore, a one street rural village 25 miles (40 kilometres) north of Cork city. Life was simple. There was no running water, no sewage, no electricity. His father owned a general store and bar, and three adjoining houses. He also had good land one mile from the village, a small farm used mainly for fattening bullocks. Yet he had huge financial struggles. A tailor, a carpenter, a blacksmith, a shoemaker, a harness maker, and a family of monumental stonecutters were located in the street. Patrick admired the talent and the goodness of these people. As Abbot he often spoke warmly of “the little ones”, a gospel phrase he felt exemplified his parents and neighbours.

“One quality in particular that seems to have come down to my family from them both [his father and mother] is a quality of littleness, of being called to walk in humility and poverty but yet in love and blessedness”.

As my Abbot he shared with me writings by simple folk he admired. Two were from the isolated Blasket islands: Maurice O’Sullivan’s 1933 Twenty Years A-Growing, and Peig Sayer’s 1935 autobiography, Peig.

After completing his primary years in Shanballymore, he moved on to secondary schooling with the Christian Brothers in Doneraile, then to two years at Cistercian College, Roscrea. His vocation clarified during the year he spent in the Civil Service at Dublin Castle.

Patrick entered Mt St Joseph Abbey, Roscrea on the feast of the Assumption 1937. He experienced this call specifically to Roscrea as a blessing.

“My first and lasting impression of my arrival at Mt St Joseph is of the wonderful warmth and kindness with which we were received… Whereas the [Cistercian] life was at the time so demanding physically and psychologically, this was in no way reflected in the character of the monks who were such lovable men. They never seem to have fallen into the trap of becoming, as we would say, ‘hung up’ on penances, rather were these – as they should be - a liberating influence on their lives. They radiated joy and happiness and were outgoing in their love and support”.

Dom Albert Derzelle, who was the superior of the community of Mokoto in eastern Congo in 1969, emphasised to me this Roscrea quality in Dom Kevin’s uncle, Fr Anthony Daly, a monk of Roscrea, and Student Master at the Generalate in Rome, when Albert was a student. Albert told me he would never have survived the regime without the kindly, moderating influence of Anthony.

Patrick O’Farrell received the novice’s habit, and the religious name Kevin, in September 1937; made his First, then Solemn Profession in 1939 and 1942; was ordained priest in 1945. He wrote of this formative period: “I feel that during that time the Holy Spirit was laying down the lines on which my whole life would follow – a blueprint as it were”. Central to this was a focus on the person of Christ. The writings of Archbishop Goodier and the Benedictine Bishop Hedley helped lay this foundation. Hedley impressed him with the teaching that he was convinced that half an hour spent in contemplating Jesus Christ did more for authentic growth than days or months spent in efforts to acquire virtue or conquer vice – without this contemplation. The accessibility of the great Cistercian writers was still in the future.

“I was also very much taken at that time by a chapter on kindness in one of Fr Faber’s books; it left me with a lifelong conviction about the value and power of kindness, since then reinforced by many an experience”.

The lives of the older men was a formative power for him, in particular their “love, joy and goodness of heart”, and their sense of humour. On the other side, he observes: “Superiors tended to canonise fidelity to strict observance, but even at that time I found myself uneasy listening to them. I tended to feel disheartened”.  Fr Hilary’s book on Roscrea, he felt, appeared to transcend all the talk of Trappist austerity. Hilary was absorbed by the beauty of Mt St Joseph, the hills and plains, the trees the birds etc. “I have always thought that this incident illustrates clearly the two different outlooks on our life”.

Kevin O’Farrell spent a period teaching at the College run by the community at Mt St Joseph. Then he was Novice Master when elected first Abbot of Tarrawarra on 29 November 1958. Before leaving a wintry Roscrea for his January installation and blessing in a Tarrawarra heat-wave, he asked Fr Thomas: “Why me?” Thomas had no hesitation in answering: “It’s very simple – God has blessed you with a kindness to people, so take care you do not lose it”. Kevin took as his abbatial motto words from St Benedict: “To be loved rather than feared”.

In his early days as Abbot, however, he felt trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea. He wrote: “I had grown up in an atmosphere where a superior saw the maintenance of regularity in observance as a very major part of the role. Now I felt obliged to keep up this tradition… Some of the most influential monks thought at the time, that I was too tolerant, too lenient”.

During his thirty years as Abbot (1958-1988) he was attentive to the graces he was offered. One of them was a visit to Taize during a General Chapter. Roger Schutz had insights that inspired Kevin. As he wrote much later: “There was the question of the complexity of the lifestyle, and a loss of priorities… the primacy of Christ had become obscured by the multitude of minute regulations. The very elaborate ceremonies in choir and at Mass also played their part. All of this fostered in my own heart a strong desire to return to the simplicity of the Gospel message of mutual love and support”. What he heard at Taize confirmed him in his earlier prayerful intuitions: “Roger went back to the Gospels to see what a Christian community should be about. He was struck at once by Christ’s teaching ‘By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another’. Here, he felt, lay the answer. From that day he worked to establish and maintain the priority of Charity in the life of his community”. Kevin was convinced of the need to put Christ and his Gospel, and the Great Commandment of love at the centre of monastic life. St Benedict had done this back at the formation of the tradition.

Vatican II provided many incentives. For instance, Kevin recalled that the Council defines the heart of revelation in this way: “The invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company”. He was to speak of his basic spirituality as “faith in God’s utterly immense love for me and all His children”. In addition, he received a life-changing personal grace that both he and the community were deeply loved by Mary with an unconditional love.

The General Chapter of 1969 buoyed Kevin because its two short documents, “Declaration on Cistercian Life” and “Statute on Unity and Pluralism”, made possible a great simplification of the customs and lifestyle of the communities. This in turn allowed a return to evangelical monastic contemplative priorities.

Ronald Fogarty, a Marist Brother who had studied Psychology in the United States and then worked on the renewal of religious life, was another godsend. Ronald contributed generously to Tarrawarra. He taught a great deal about community life and the models of community, the principles that underlie growth as a person and how to foster one another’s growth. “He stressed that in the years ahead only communities that are warm and supporting will be able to survive and attract new members”.

Kevin attended many General Chapters. He came away with a clear conviction of the importance of the abbot:

“One thing stands out with crystal clearness, that the abbot – the quality of the man – is of the greatest importance for the well-being and happiness of a Cistercian community”.

Why? “Above all, he is meant to be the sacrament of God’s love to his monks”.

“There is no greater service the abbot can render his monks than this – to help them realise how greatly they are loved by Christ, and his Mother Mary, and with a love that is unconditional. In a sense, if they once have this conviction, all else will fall into place”.

Another member of the Order has shared this insight concerning Dom Kevin and his contribution to General Chapter:

Dom Kevin’s influence at chapters was strictly back-room (informally and in the commissions). Apart from a natural reticence, he didn’t speak other languages, and others found his accent difficult. But he was an abbot for 30 years during a very difficult period and he lived up to his motto: Plus amari quam timeri. The measure of an abbot is what happens in his community, not what happens at the General Chapter.

News

Fr. Bernat Juliol, OSB

Millennium Commissioner 2025

Montserrat Abbey: 1,000 years

Ora. Lege. Labora. Rege te ipsum. In communitate.

In 2025, we will be commemorating the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of the monastery of Montserrat by Oliba, Abbot of Ripoll and Cuixà and Bishop of Vic. History tells us that as early as 888, on the mountain of Montserrat, there was a small hermitage dedicated to the Virgin Mary. It was not until some decades later, in 1025, that a group of monks from Ripoll, sent by their abbot, built a Benedictine monastery next to the hermitage. Thus the monastery of Montserrat was born, which has always been marked by this dual aspect: Benedictine monastery and Marian sanctuary. In other words, a place of prayer, evangelical life, pilgrimage and hope.

The fact that the founder was the Abbot and Bishop Oliba, one of the most important promoters of peace in the Middle Ages, has had a profound effect on the monastery of Montserrat throughout its history. For a thousand years, Montserrat has sought to be a place of welcome and encounter, a place of listening, understanding and peace. In this way, the commitment of its founder has strengthened the charism that the Benedictine monks have tried to live out since the beginning of the Middle Ages, in the 6th century. Indeed, one of its main mottos has always been: Pax! A simple but profound motto.

Benedictine monastic life was summed up most eloquently on 24 October 1964 by Pope Paul VI in his apostolic letter Pacis Nuntius, in which he proclaimed St Benedict the Patron saint of Europe. In it, he said that Saint Benedict and his children had brought Christian progress ‘with the cross, the book and the plough’. The cross, the book and the plough. Three symbols that, over the course of a thousand years, have also been forged in the monastery of Montserrat, not to remain locked within the walls of the monastery, but to be shared with society as a whole.

In fact, through hundreds of generations of monks, the monastery of Montserrat has worked with the cross, a sign of faith and spirituality, with the book, a sign of culture and thought, and with the plough, a sign of social construction and progress. It was done with the will to be rooted in the land that saw it born and that, at the same time, opened it up to the world. Rooted in the land and open to the world, a witness to the faith and welcoming to all, grateful for the past and looking to the future. It is with this hope that the monastery of Montserrat is preparing to celebrate the first millennium of its existence.

Years of reflection in preparation for Millennium 2025 have finally resulted in a motto based on the well-known Benedictine motto Ora et labora, and supplemented by the monastic experience of two centuries of monastic life throughout the world and, in particular, by the path travelled at Montserrat. It is a motto based on five elements that not only defines monastic life but also expresses what Benedictine monasticism can contribute to society and the contemporary world. It is therefore a synthesis of the wisdom that Saint Benedict demonstrated as a connoisseur of monks, but above all as a connoisseur of authentic human nature.

Ora: Prayer is the foundation of this motto and it is also the foundation of life. It teaches us to step outside ourselves and transcend ourselves towards the God of Jesus Christ, who is true Beauty, true Truth, true Goodness and true Love.

Lege: Reading as a symbol of culture and culture as an expression of the beauty of the human soul. Since ancient times, monasteries have been places for the transmission of knowledge: libraries, writers and music are obvious examples. Culture elevates the human spirit and brings it closer to God.

Labora: Work becomes an instrument of personal fulfilment and transformation of the world. Effort, perseverance, tenacity, hard work and patience are typical of the non-conformist, the person who believes that a better world is possible.

Rege te ipsum: The monastic tradition teaches that self-knowledge and taking charge of one’s own life are the source of true freedom. This freedom enables us to live according to principles and values that give meaning to our existence and, in short, makes us understand that true happiness is found in putting ourselves at the service of others.

In communitate: What is Montserrat? Montserrat is certainly a Benedictine monastic community. But Montserrat is also a wider community, made up of all the men and women who identify with it. This large community teaches us that together we can walk into the future without fear, with strength and hope.

These elements, which make up the motto of the Millennium of Montserrat 2025, are the proposal that Benedictine monastic life can make to its contemporaries. They show that life has meaning if it is lived consistently with certain principles; they show that happiness is possible if we put our gifts at the service of others; they show that God constantly encourages us to be better people and to build a better society.

News

Dom James Mylackal, osb

President of ISBF

Golden Jubilee of the Indo-Sri Lankan

Benedictine Federation (ISBF)

1975-2025

A Celebration of Monastic Fraternity

The Golden Jubilee of the Indo-Sri Lankan Benedictine Federation (ISBF) was joyfully celebrated on February 17, 2025, at the Asirvanam Benedictine Monastery in Bangalore, India. This momentous occasion brought together monks and nuns from Benedictine communities across India and Sri Lanka to reflect on the spiritual journey of the past fifty years and renew their commitment to the monastic way of life. The Conventual Prior Rev. Fr. Jerome Naduvathaniyil OSB of the hosting monastery and Rev.Fr. James Mylackal OSB the Conventual Prior of the Navajeevan Monastery in Vijayawada, India, the President of the Federation welcomed the august gathering. The celebration was honored by the presence of Archbishop Mar Mathew Moolakkatt OSB, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Kottayam, Kerala, India. In his inaugural address as Benedictine he appreciated the steady growth of the presence of the Benedictine men and women in these two countries and he blessed the gathering. Abbot Primate, Most Rev. Fr. Jeremias Schroeder, OSB, the President of the Alliance InterMonastères (Alliance for International Monasticism, AIM), Abbot Bernard Lorent, Most Rev. Abbot President (Sylvestrine) Antony Puthenpurackal OSB, the President of Communio Internationalis Benedictinarum (CIB), Rev. Sr. Lynn McKenzie, Rev. Fr. Cyprian Consiglio, OSB Cam, Secretary General of DIM/MID whose presence and messages underscored the significance of monastic solidarity beyond national borders. A day was set apart for the Inter-Religious Dialogue, Fr. Showraiah Guvvala OSB from Sant’Anselmo presented about the courses offered by the Athenaeum and Sr. Reshmi OSB, Secretary of AIM explained about the financial situation and projects.

Following the Jubilee Eucharistic celebration, the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Federation commenced and continued until February 21,2025. It was a time of spiritual renewal, reflection, and discussion on the challenges and opportunities facing monastic life in today’s world.

A Vision Rooted in Benedictine Spirituality:

The Indo-Sri Lankan Benedictine Federation (ISBF) was founded fifty years ago at the same monastery Asirvanam, Bangalore with a clear vision: to foster unity, collaboration, and spiritual enrichment among Benedictine monasteries in India and Sri Lanka. At its core, the ISBF is not merely an administrative body but a spiritual family that seeks to deepen St. Benedict’s vision through prayer, study, and communal support.

Today, the federation has expanded to include 15 Congregations and is strengthened by over 100 monastic communities. More than 700 monks and nuns across the two nations dedicate themselves to the Rule of St. Benedict, embracing a life of Ora et Labora—prayer and work—within the rich cultural and spiritual landscapes of India and Sri Lanka.

India, a land of diverse religious and philosophical traditions, offers a unique environment for monastic life, where the Benedictine charism finds harmony with the contemplative spirit deeply embedded in Indian spirituality. Sri Lanka, known as the Pearl of the Indian Ocean, has long been a land of monastic heritage, where the Benedictine tradition continues to flourish in the midst of a Buddhist culture alongside the country’s deep-rooted Christian faith.

The Purpose of the ISBF: Strengthening Monastic Life in the 21st Century:

The ISBF provides a spiritual platform for its members to:

• Deepen fraternity and unity among monastic communities.

• Engage in theological and spiritual reflection to discern and respond to the challenges of monastic life today.

• Foster mutual learning and support, drawing from the rich experiences of different communities.

• Organize ongoing formation programs for those in initial formation and for formators.

• Exchange resources – both spiritual and material – to help monasteries thrive.

Each year, the federation conducts study sessions and retreats, providing monks and nuns with opportunities to reflect, learn, and grow in their vocation. These initiatives are rooted in the Benedictine call to stability, conversion of life, and obedience, ensuring that the monastic way remains vibrant and relevant in the face of modern challenges.

Marching Forward in Faith and Gratitude:

As the ISBF celebrates fifty years of monastic collaboration, we give thanks to God’s providence and hard works of the pioneers and the generosity of benefactors especially, the AIM USA and AIM Vanves, FRANCE, well-wishers, and the wider Church who have supported this journey. The call to seek God together remains at the heart of our mission, and we move forward with renewed faith, deeper commitment, and unwavering hope in the monastic path.

The journey continues, guided by the wisdom of St. Benedict, as we strive to live as authentic witnesses of the Gospel, united in prayer and love, ever seeking the face of God. Thank you.

News

Based on an article by Father Sibi Joseph Vattapara, osb

Saint Joseph’s Monastery in Makkiyad

Ashir Sadan (Teok):

Silver Jubilee of a Foundation in India

25 years of Prayer, Service and Hope

In the image of Pope Francis’ call in Evangelii Gaudium (“... an evangelizing community gets involved by word and deed in people’s daily lives; […] it embraces human life, touching the suffering flesh of Christ in others.” EG 24), monastic life is dedicated to prayer, solitude and union with God, while remaining close to the joys and struggles of humanity.

This vocation, inherited from the Desert Fathers, has been embodied over the centuries in various forms, such as that of Saint Sylvester Guzzolini, founder of the Sylvestrins in the 13th century: the Order of Saint Benedict of Montefano - now known as the Sylvestrian Benedictines. In 1962, these monks arrived in India, in Kerala, where their presence has gradually spread throughout the country (Makkiyad, Jeevan Jyothi, Navajeevan).

In 1999, the brothers of the priory of Saint Joseph in Makkiyad founded the monastery of Ashir Sadan, in the diocese of Dibrugarh, in Assam. This foundation, modest in its beginnings, over the years became a radiant spiritual centre. Carried by the Spirit, the monks devote themselves to prayer, silence and the service of the tribal populations of north-east India, who are often marginalised. Their simple lives, rooted in the Gospel, bear witness to incarnate love and active solidarity. The monks go out to meet the local people, sharing the Word, promoting education, and sowing the seeds of peace and dignity. Inspired by the Second Vatican Council, they affirm that the contemplative life is a force for evangelisation.

A Monastery Rooted in Tradition and Open to the World

The monastery of Ashir Sadan today embodies a vision of monasticism that is both faithful to its spiritual tradition and attentive to contemporary needs. Set in the peaceful hills of Assam, it has become a beacon of hope, a place of prayer, fraternity and social commitment.

The story of Ashir Sadan began on 27 October 1999, when Fathers Stephen Kulathinal and Thomas Kodakassery, guided by Prior Jose Kadakelil, left St Joseph’s Priory in Makkiyad, Kerala, for the Diocese of Dibrugarh. Their mission, inspired by the zeal of Saint Paul and Barnabas, was supported by their entire community. Before their departure, they received the support of the Vanashram community in Bangalore and emotional blessings at the station, a strong sign of fraternity.

Their journey was marked by Cyclone Paradip, which hit Odisha hard. Stuck in a train for two days, without food or water, they lived through a time of extreme anguish, with violent winds, armed looters and total isolation. It was an intense physical and spiritual ordeal that they faced in prayer.

Arriving in Calcutta and then Dibrugarh on 4 October 1999, they joined Father Thomas Kodakassery. At the instigation of Bishop Joseph Aind of Dibrugarh, they explored the diocese with the help of local missionaries and religious to find a suitable place to establish a monastery. They chose an isolated plot of land at Teok, in the Jorhat district, a former marshland site surrounded by tea plantations, judged to be suitable for the contemplative life.

With the agreement of the bishop and the official transfer of the land in 1999, work began. The monastery was officially inaugurated on 6 January 2000 at a ceremony presided over by Bishop Aind. Bishop Aind saw Ashir Sadan as a spiritual centre to support the often isolated Catholic communities in the region. The beginnings were modest. The monks settled into a rudimentary building, faced with the extreme climate of Assam and the poor quality of the water, contaminated with arsenic and fluoride. Thanks to the help of the bishop, who provided them with equipment and logistical support, living conditions gradually improved. As a result, Ashir Sadan has become much more than a simple monastery: it is a living sign of faith, perseverance and Christian solidarity in the heart of north-east India.

Faithfulness, Service and Hope

In October 2000, Abbot Andrea Pantaloni visited the young monastery of Ashir Sadan. Despite the harsh climate of Assam –heavy rains, floods, heat – the monks, faithful to the Benedictine rule of ora et labora, cultivated the land and offered spiritual and social accompaniment in the villages, learning the local languages so as to serve better.

The Benedictine Monastery of Ashir Sadan has grown steadily since its foundation. Around 2002, Father Jose Kochuparambil, who was involved in local ministry, mastered the local dialects and forged links with the villagers, proposed setting up an educational establishment for the marginalised in the Jorhat district, believing that education was a vital tool for social progress. Obstacles mounted (floods, meagre resources, a shortage of monks, threatening letters, physical attacks on the monks) and almost destroyed the efforts of the community. Encouraged by the local Church and Pope John Paul II (Address to the Sylvester Benedictines on 8 September 2001), the brothers persevered despite the threats, gradually gaining the trust of the local population. On 21 January 2002, Bishop Joseph Aind blessed the opening of the school.

In 2006, with the support of Bishop Joseph Aind and the priory, a new building was completed, enabling the monks to move from their original modest premises to a larger space, part of which was converted into a retreat centre for priests and religious from north-east India. In the same year, the monastery opened a boarding school for boys from the remote villages of Teok, offering education and stability. The monks ensured discipline and taught values such as compassion, filling the educational gaps in the region identified in the 2001 census.

The monastery is extending its reach through village programmes under the aegis of the Mariani parish, responding to local needs and providing essential aid during crises such as the frequent floods in Assam - recorded every year in the 2000s - and the COVID - 19 pandemic that began in 2020, by distributing food, medicine, clothing and shelter to the affected inhabitants, thus consolidating its role as a regional anchor.

Around 2006, the monks of the Benedictine monastery of Ashir Sadan invited the Presentation Sisters, a congregation active in education in India since the 19th century, and offered them land to join their mission. The monks asked the sisters to set up a hostel for girls to provide them with a safe space for education and growth. The hostel, which would complement the boys’ boarding school opened that year, would serve the needs of the diverse communities in the rural district of Jorhat, including the tea-producing tribes and Assamese groups identified in the 2001 census. Under the leadership of the Presentation Sisters, the hostel quickly flourished, offering, since 2007, shelter, education and support to girls from diverse backgrounds thanks to the Order’s expertise in promoting education.This partnership between monks and sisters has strengthened Ashir Sadan’s outreach, combining the Benedictine emphasis on work and prayer with the sisters’ educational heritage, and has significantly increased the monastery’s impact. In 2025, the monastery’s educational efforts – now including the school, opened in 2002, and the girls’ hostel – continue to provide quality education to the people of Teok and are an enduring symbol of resilience and service in the face of Assam’s challenges.

Gratitude and Joy: Ashir Sadan Monastery’s Jubilee Celebration

In January 2025, Ashir Sadan Benedictine Monastery celebrated its 25th anniversary since its foundation in January 2000. This milestone reflects a quarter of a century of service, prayer and growth under the Rule of St Benedict and is part of the Jubilee of Hope proclaimed by Pope Francis for this year, which emphasises renewal and trust in God at the heart of challenges. Guided by Benedictine values of work, prayer and community, the monastery reflects the biblical call of the Jubilee - rooted in Leviticus chapter 25 - to restore relationships and foster spiritual renewal. This mission is reinforced by the perseverance shown in the face of the Assam floods, local mistrust in the early 2000s and crises such as COVID-19.

With the support of the Alliance for International Monasticism (AIM) and the Priory of St Joseph in Makkiyad, its mother house, Ashir Sadan has developed over the years, notably with the blessing of a new monastic church by Bishop Joseph Aind on 11 June 2023, reinforcing its role as a spiritual centre. The monastery’s educational programme, including the school opened in 2002 and the girls’ hostel run by the Presentation sisters since 2006, continues to serve the diverse communities of the Jorhat district, while the retreat centre established in the 2006 building welcomes priests and religious from north-east India for contemplation and renewal. As the novitiate house of St Joseph’s Priory, Ashir Sadan has trained future monks and nurtured local priests such as Fathers Jiten Urang and Philip Kujur, consolidating its legacy as a centre of vocations and hope in the region up to 2025.

News

Dom Javier Aparicio Suarez

New Abbot President of the Congregation of Sankt Ottilien

Newsletter of Sankt-Ottilien (www.erzabtei.de)

On 18 January 2025, the Missionary Benedictines of Sankt-Ottilien elected Father Javier Aparicio Suárez, aged 55, as their 7th Abbot President. He succeeds Father Jeremias Schröder, who was elected Abbot Primate of the Benedictines in Rome last September. The official seat of the Abbot President is traditionally located in Sankt Ottilien, Upper Bavaria. It is here that Father Javier has been working for the past four years as a Procurator in the administration of the Congregation. He was blessed abbot immediately after his election.

The new President of the Congregation was born in 1969 in Valladolid (Spain) into a family strongly influenced by the Christian religion. After completing his A-levels in 1986, he studied philosophy and theology at the University of Navarre in 1987, while studying piano at the music conservatory in Pamplona. In 1990, he joined the Augustinian Recollect Order of Navarre. After ordination to the priesthood in 1994, he worked for three years as headmaster of a primary and secondary school in southern Spain. In 2001, together with two monks from Silos, he founded the Monastery of San Salvador del Monte Irago, a monastery on the route to Santiago de Compostela in Spain, which belongs to the Archabbey of Sankt Ottilien.

In 2004, he transferred his stability to Sankt Ottilien. In 2006, he became Guestmaster of the Archabbey of Sankt Ottilien, where he also taught the novices in the monastery. From 2010 to 2021, he served as superior of the monastery of Rabanal del Camino, on the Camino de Santiago in Spain, and was also a member of the Council of the Congregation. In 2021 he was appointed Procurator General of the Congregation, a post he held until his election. This role mainly involves coordinating projects and finances worldwide. In this capacity, he regularly visited all the monasteries of the Congregation in Europe, Africa, America and Asia.

News

Dom Bernard Lorent Tayart, osb

President of AIM

The Commission on China

On 15 March 2025, the members of the ‘Benedictine Commission on China’ met at Sant’Anselmo under the chairmanship of the Abbot Primate. Present were delegates from congregations or orders interested in China for the following reasons: some of their members are active in China or are of Chinese origin; some abbeys welcome Chinese or even Vietnamese candidates to their theology faculties; others translate and prepare theological material for Chinese vocations; they are China’s neighbours, like certain monasteries in South Korea or Taiwan; others have historical links and friendships dating back to missionary times; and finally, they live in Hong Kong or Macao, which enjoy a special status in China.

The aim was to discuss activities and challenges for Benedictine life in China, and to explore opportunities for theological studies and cultural exchanges.

The testimonies show a monastic presence that has to adapt to political requirements by practising a pastoral, welcoming and caring activity based on discretion; and by accepting restrictions concerning participation in Mass or, in another area, the purchase of property.

Two members of the Dicastery for Evangelisation introduced us to the ‘Chinese’ Desk of the Dicastery for relations with the Church in China, and the ‘China Pastoral Commission’, which also looks after Chinese living outside China. Although institutional religious life for men is still not authorised in the country, all the bishops of China are now in communion with the Holy Father, even though there is still no Chinese Episcopal Conference officially recognised by the Holy See. The important thing is to take small steps and understand that the Chinese mentality is different and just as respectable as the Western mentality.