A Contemporary Theology of The Vows
A Contemporary Theology of The Vows
A Contemporary Theology of The Vows
Scholar Commons
Jesuit School of Theology
1977
Recommended Citation
Schneiders, Sandra Marie “A Contemporary Theology of the Vows.” In Journeying Resources, 14-27. Washington, DC: Leadership
Conference of Women Religious, 1977.
This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jesuit School of Theology by
an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
A CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY OF THE VOWS
Introduction
The Church, by expressing its slowly matured and radically new con-
viction that the world is not the enemy but the raw material of the Reign
of God and that, therefore, the Church is and should be in, with, and
for the world, participating in its struggles for the transformation of
humankind, has made an institutionalization of world-transcendence (to
say nothing of world-denial) not only useless but illegitimate. Reli-
gious, whether they like it or not, must be in, with, and for the world
as the Church now recognizes itself to be. This has enormous implica-
tions in the practical and in the theoretical domains. The practical
implications are becoming evident in the life-style and ministry of re-
ligious. But the gap is widening between an official theory of religious
life that is still largely pre-conciliarS and a practice which is based
more on Gaudium et Spes· than on Perfectae Carita tis.
-15-
to create a better world are often at least as evangelical in goal,
content, and methods as the efforts of religious. Religious are not
the only people interested in the salvation of the world, and often
their long history of world-denial has made them less capable of grasp-
ing the world-transforming vision of Vatican II and less adept at im-
plementing that vision than people who have participated all their lives
in the world process that most religious renounced at an early age.
The closed system is dissolving and religious are more and more
caught up in the main stream of society and culture. Two results of
this situation condition any contemporary consideration of the vows:
1) to make sense to themselves religious have to make sense to their
contemporaries in the world (which is not the same thing, necessarily,
as being approved of by the world); 2) to survive as religious in the
main stream it is imperative that religious articulate a new relation-
ship to the world which is neither simply absorption nor the continuation
of an adversary stance.
-16-
What stance toward the world does one take by entering religious
life today? Clearly, by refusing to "build oneself into" the familial,
economic, and political structures of the surrounding society the person
has· taken an independent stance. It is not one of "flight" or of "sepa-
ration." But it is also not one of simply belonging. It is, ideally,
one'. of prophetic presence. Some people have referred to it as a "coun-
ter-culture" stance. I once called it a stance of "creative disengage-
ment."6 Whatever we choose to call it, we mean that religious try to
maintain a certain personal and corporate liberty in regard to the basic
structures and dynamisms of the world, a liberty which will enable them
to bring to bear upon its forms and activities the evangelical values
which must transform the world. The specific relationship between the
individual religious and/or congregation and the particular structures
and activities in their sector of the world may be one of the condemning
outright evil, criticizing the inadequate, clarifying the ambiguous, co-
operating with the good, or some combination of these. The important
thing is that religious attempt to structure their lives in such a way
that they have the necessary liberty to relate prophetically to the world.
Prophetic presence requires contemplative insight and courageous action.
These, it might be argued, are the contemporary analogue of flight or
separation from the world.
Poverty
\~en the twentieth century American over the age of forty tries to
think about material goods s/he has to be aware of the kaleidoscopic
transformations in the economy that have taken place in a generation and
a half. From an economy of scarcity which reached agonizing proportions
in the depression era through an economy of abundance that the post-war
generation incarnated in a throw-away culture we have come to a realistic
understanding of an economy of finitude.
Material resources are not infinite and we will either use them re-
sponsibly or we and/or our children will not have the means to live at
all on this planet. This realization has changed our attitudes toward
material goods. Goods are resources and that means they are to be used
for and not just used ~· Furthermore, not all of the projects which
resources can serve are equally worthwhile and since the resources are
not infinite choices have to be made.
Religious were not the first, much less the only, people to realize
that, as a cosmic community, we must undergo a conversion in the area of
attitude and behavior toward material goods, from an attitude of mindless
exploitation to one of responsible stewardship. Not far behind this re-
alization came the conviction that the inequity of distribution of mate-
rial goods and the resultant domination of the poor by the rich is an in-
tolerable source of the edge-of-doom situation in which we live. In other
words, the human race is beginning to see that the establishment of a sane
and healthy relationship between finite material resources and the quality
of life for all people is crucial to the survival of the race and of the
planet. How to establish such a relationship, given the obvious headstart
of selfishness, exploitation, crass irresponsibility, domination, and the
structures which institutionalize them, is a staggering problem.
-18-
If the religious vow of poverty is going to make sense today,
even to religious themselves, to say nothing of other people, it can-
not continue to be understood as a private reality operating in the
closed system that the religious subculture once created. It has to
relat~ the religious enterprise to the enormous human project of orga-
nizing material resources for the creation of a geniunely human world.
Religious poverty has to clearly cast the weight of Christianity into
the balance on the side of responsible stewardship, institutional re-
form, and the liberation of the poor. But even more importantly it
should help to surface and explicitate the potentially evangelical
values in this world struggle for a human economy and contribute an
evangelical dimension where none yet exists.
It is not easy to work out what the vow of poverty means in today's
world. In principle it means to participate prophetically in the human
effort to convert the race from exploitation to responsible stewardship,
to liberate the poor by an equitable distribution of goods, to create
the economic structures which will effectively relate finite resources
to human ends. But it also means to model a sharing of life through a
sharing of goods that expresses a Christian experience of poverty of
spirit. In the concrete it probably means a re-evaluation of holdings
and life-styles and an abandonment of the privatized exclusivity of the
religious subculture. To work out the details of such an approach will
not be easy. But a poverty of this kind which renounces both the child-
ish irrelevance of an artificial dependence and the romanticism of a use-
less and unreal imitation of the destitute and concentrates on alleviat-
ing misery while building the structures of human solidarity can make
sense to the religious who vows poverty today. And, although the world
will undoubtedly not always like what religious are doing in this area it
will at least have to take it seriously.
Celibacy
The vow of celibacy was once the least ambiguous of the three. It
regulated affectivity by almost total denial, if not outright repression,
-19-
and its obligations were perfectly clear. It was relatively simple to
maintain this situation as long as religious life remained a closed
system. But today celibacy has to be thought about in the context of
the affective revolution that characterizes our time. This revolution
includes not only run-away eroticism aod .its negative corollaries but
also a valid liberation of both women and men from sexually stereotyped
roles and life styles, the movement for the rights of sexual minorities,
the struggle for the liberation and equal rights of women. We are mid-
stream in a major cultural conversion from a basically one-sex, male-
dominated society (and Church) to a two-sex society characterized by
responsible mutuality. The person who vows celibacy for evangelical
reasons is in a unique position to contribute to this positive trans-
formation of society.
-20-
when religious who have allowed themselves virtually no affective ex-
pression since early adolescence find themselves suddenly in a two-sex
world. Vocational disasters have been frequent enough in the last few
years to give even the non-scrupulous some pause. Nevertheless, one .
senses a general commitment among women and men religious to their own '
sexual and affective maturation and to the creation of loving communi~
ties which bodes well for the future of religious life.
If celibacy comes to mean not simply sexual denial but a total com-
mitment to the creation of a genuine world community and, within that
global enterprise, a commitment to becoming an ever more loving human
being it will not cease to be baffling to a world largely structured by
selfishness, or offensive to the proponents of unrestrained eroticism,
but it will have to be taken seriously as a significant human venture.
Obedience
/
It has become almost a cliche to speak of the crisis of authority
and obedience, not only in religious life but in the Church and society
at large. This is the context of any contemporary discussion of the vow
of obedience. The crisis is much deeper than some proponents of a res-
toration of the ancien regime would like to think. It is not simply that
those in authority are exercising authority badly or that those who should
-21-
be obeying lack faith, humility, or some other virtue (alth~ugh both
are sometimes true) . It is that the principle of hierarchy, which is
traditionally the nerve of both secular and religious obedience, is
being radically questioned and the principle of participation is sup-
planting it in more and more sectors of life. Because it has traditional-
ly been thought that the Church is hierarchical by divine institution and
that nothing can or will ever really change this, many people simply do
not attend to the real nature and seriousness of this changing perception
of the nature of human relationships.7
-22-
To an ever greater degree societies are rejecting the hierarchical
principle as a valid way of organizing social and political life. It
is part of the rejection of domination and of the espousal of liberation
and self-determination. It is the fruit not simply of the desire of peo-
ple to control their own lives and destinies but also of a fundamental
conviction regarding the intrinsic equality of all persons and of a
growing sense of the inalienability of personal responsibility .
Members of the Church and religious are not immune from these cur-
rents of contemporary e xperience. In many ways the efforts to under-
stand and practice collegiality constitute a move away at least from the
monarchical understanding of hierarchy and toward a more participative
practice. Many religious communities of women, and some of men, have
largely abandoned, in practice if not in theory, the hierarchical under-
standing of religious life. This process is being intensified by the
alignment of religious as individuals and as groups, with the liberation
efforts going on about them. They are absorbing the theory and practice
of liberation theology and adjusting it to the North American scene . The
implications for the organization of the local and universal Church, as
well as religious life, are difficult to ignore .
Obe dience is certainly the vow which presents the greatest challenge
for the development of a contemporary theology of religious life. It ·
seems to run counter to the most important and positive social movements
of our times. If, however, the fundamental intentionality of obedience
can be reappropriated by contemporary religious it is not inconceivable
that obedience will make a prophetic contribution to the struggl e for
liberation. Religious have always made a vow of obedience as the best
way to promote their own true freedom. They have been convinced that in
God's will is true peace, within ourselves and among ourselves . Rel igious
obedience is a dedication to freedom, not to subjection or servitude. It
is as true today as it has ever been that true freedom is to be found in
the carrying out of the will of God, even if religious, along with the
rest of the human race, are coming gradually to see that obedience to God
cannot be handled as simply as a traditional theology of obedience would
suggest.
-23-
explicitly seen to be equality not only as human beings but as creatures
and children of the same God redeemed by the same Christ. They should
be a prophetic witness that it is possible for a group of po~ple to live
together in love and justice celebrating their own freedom and equality
in the very act of. celebrating God's abso1ute and respectful dominion
in their lives. Their community life and organization should explici-
tate the relationship between seeking God's will and experiencing human
freedom (which has always been the real meaning of religious obedience),
between accepting responsibility for oneself and putting one's life at
the service of the other and of the common good (which is the Gospel
meaning of maturity).
The institutions which religious own, direct, or serve also raise the
challenge of justice and freedom. The justice of hiring policies, the
recognition and protection of the rights of employees and clients, the
integrity of investment policies are among the justice concerns which
touch the religious community directly. But the concern for justice and
liberation cannot stop with the community or its insitutitions. The
financial and p~rsonnel commitments of religious congregations must ex-
press the priority assigned to the quest for justice. As the Synod of
Bishops put it, "Action on behalf of justice and participation in the
transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimen-
sion of the preaching of the Gospel .. .. " (/16). Religious obedience has
- 24-
a lways been understood as a quest for true freedom and as the way in
which the individual religious was integrated into the congregation's
apostolate of preaching the Gospel. It would seem that, at the deepest
level, this is still what it means. What has changed most, perhaps, is
our understanding of freedom and of what it means to preach the Gospel.
As religious interiorize new understandings in these areas and incor-
porate them into their understanding and practice of the vow of obedience
t he vow itself can become intelligible to our contemporaries and more
significant to religious themselves.
Conclusion
The vows, as we have tried to show, can be seen as ways not only
of giving prophetic witness against the chief perversions of the basic
human energies of possession, affectivity, and power, but also of com-
mitting oneself to fostering the most positive forces of transformation
at work in the world. They can be ways of integrating the evangelical
dimension into the struggle to convert society and to transform the
world into a human and ultimately holy habitation for human beings. They
can constitute concrete modes of fostering the movements from exploitation
of material resources to responsible stewardship in a finite universe;
from a male-dominated and selfish society to one structured by mutuality
and orientated toward responsible intimacy; from a social order charac-
terized by domination and coercion of the weak by the strong to one in
which people participatively and cooperatively seek the maximum of free-
dom and justice for every person.
-25-
Practically, this selective cooperation of religious with the
major positive dynamisms in our society will demand a re-evaluation
of traditional commitments and a redirection of personnel and material
resources. Religious will be less frequently operating and staffing
parallel institutions and more frequently cooperating in ventures
t hey do not control but must influence in virtue of competence rather
than their ownership.
***
-26-
Footnotes
-27-