Michael Amaladoss

Is Religious life in crisis today? The lack of vocations in the richer and more secularized countries and the rise of the Laity who are now doing much of the work that the clergy and the Religious used to do in the past may make us think so. There may be also a crisis among the Religious themselves with regard to their self-understanding. They used to think – the official Church tells them so even now – that theirs is a more perfect way of life. They follow the evangelical counsels. They are in a ‘state of perfection’. They recall the words of Jesus to the rich young man: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give your money to the poor…; then come, follow me.” (Mt 19:21) But today even the documents of the Church speak about the universal call to holiness. The Religious in general, at least in India, are much richer than the poor. Another issue is that the Religious in India often look to the Hindu sannyasi or the Buddhist Bhikku as their model. But apart from a few who live in some ashrams very few imitate such world-renouncers.

In the recent past there has also been some discussion about understanding the identity of the Religious vocation. It is customary to look upon the Religious in terms of three characteristics: identity, community and mission. There has been a question whether community and mission are determined in terms of identity or mission determines identity and communion. What is more central: identity or mission? I am not going to argue the point here. But I think that mission is what determines the kind of that Religious live. People who followed earlier contemplative traditions may have run away from the world to live a more perfect Christian life. Even they must have been examples for others. But the founders of apostolic orders did not say: ‘Let me live a more perfect life’ and then look for something to do. They found something to do for God and for others and then they designed an appropriate way of life for themselves. Though they followed tradition by taking the three vows they interpreted them according to the needs of their mission.

I think that the Religious are not more perfect than any one else. Perfection depends on how one responds to God’s call in whatever state of life one is. What marks out Religious is that they have a special call. That call by itself does not make them more perfect. This call is to be symbols of the Kingdom of God in this world. They are the people who show every one by their lives that another world is possible. They may do in various ways: by being contemplatives or active religious doing various things in the world at the service of people. The different kinds of religious life correspond to different dimensions of life and to various needs of mission. The contemplatives witness to a kind of life that is more than material and secular. The active Religious contribute to the building up of a different world and way of life. Contemplation and action are not two separate ways of life. They are two dimension of life that all should have, though each may have more of the one or the other according to the mission in which one is engaged. To be contemplative is to be mystic and to be active is to be prophetic. So each one must be both mystic and prophetic. As a matter of fact, all Christians have to be such. But religious, because of their mission, are called to live a particular dimension in symbolic depth and demonstrative richness.

The Jesuits on Mission
The Jesuits have no doubt about the mission to which they have been called: the service of faith and the promotion of justice which is its essential requirement. Today this cannot be done without dialoguing with cultures and religions. GC 34 says:

The aim of our mission (the service of the faith) and its integrating principle (faith directed towards the justice of the Kingdom) are dynamically related to the inculturated proclamation of the Gospel and dialogue with other religious traditions as integral dimensions of evangelization. (Decree 2:15)

We accomplish this mission wherever there is greater need. Paul VI recognized that

Wherever in the Church, even in the most difficult and extreme fields, in the crossroads of ideologies, in the front line between the deepest human desires and the perennial message of the Gospel, there have been, and there are Jesuits.

Our Religious life should be ordered to this mission. Our mission is not a consequence of an identity which we share with all other Religious in terms of the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Rather the identity of our Religious lives and of our vows is determined by our mission. The specificity of our mission is spelt out by our Constitutions as being ‘companions of Jesus’ and ‘friends in the Lord’. While the first keeps us rooted, the second makes us reach out in fellowship and solidarity in life and work. This might eventually involve other collaborators too. As Jesuits we do not have any particular apostolate. We have to be where the needs of the people call us. This is the idea of being at the disposal of the Pope who has concern for the universal Church and the world. But such an open commitment supposes on our part availability for any work, anywhere, at any time and mobility.

Other papers in this volume are speaking about the various challenges for our mission today. Taking them for granted, I shall speak about their consequences for our life. But, rather than speak in general about our life, I shall focus on the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Our previous General Congregations have had decrees on poverty and chastity. It is said that the 35th GC may write a decree on obedience. It is not my intention here to go into the technicalities of these vows and their corresponding virtues. I shall focus rather on the challenges they face in the post-modern world.

The main purpose of the vows is to make us radically free for our mission. The three vows indicate three broad areas in which we need to be free: love of wealth – freedom from material goods, attachment to persons – freedom to love god and every one else without reserve and egoism – freedom to do the will of God. But what these things mean concretely depends on the situation of the world in which we are. This may vary both in space and in time.

The Field of our Mission
I shall start with a brief spelling out of the reality of the post modern world. There is no appreciable reduction of poor people in the world. The gap between the rich and poor is only increasing, both locally and globally. The means of injustice and oppression, becoming global, seem to become intractable. Politics as a game of power supports economic oppression. There is tension between unipolar and multipolar conceptions of the world. The hegemony of one super power seems to be threatening every one. Power is pursued and exercised in all sorts of unethical ways. Corruption is rampant, especially in poorer countries. The poor and the oppressed tend to protest more vigorously, even if they are often silenced in various ways. Violence is growing and terrorism seems to have become the weapon of the weak. Racial, caste and gender discriminations are as active as ever, though, sometimes, in unacknowledged, hidden forms. The migrants, legal and illegal, are marginalized. The whole continent of Africa seems to be forgotten in the global market place and the political arena. The family structures are breaking down and individualism is ruining the lives of many. The individual is alienated from nature, from his own body and from society. Psychological tensions abound. In a globalizing world cultures have not only to confront each other. They are also facing the challenges of scientific and technological modernity. A global consumer culture promoted by the media is threatening all cultures. Growing secularization is widening the gap between religions and cultures. Religions seem to be losing their prophetic power. All kinds of new religious movements that offer a quick and easy peace of mind are in the field, while the traditional religions seem to be closing in on themselves, becoming more or less fundamentalist. In a world where there is growing competition for scarce resources, religions are becoming social and markers and political agents. Inter-religious violence is increasing. It is to this world that we are sent on mission today.

1. Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, XII, 1974, p. 1181.

Let us now reflect on the vows and the challenges they face one by one.

Called to be Poor
All world religions ( Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam) encourage their followers to be poor. Hindus do recognize artha or wealth as one of the four goals of life. But this has to be renounced when one is pursuing moksha or liberation. Being poor means to have nothing and to be dependent on others even for one’s food. Most sannyasis and bhikkus practice such poverty even today. Jesus asked his disciples to practice such poverty. (cf. Mt. 10:9-10) Francis of Assisi was wedded to ‘Lady Poverty’. Ignatius too practiced and advocated the same for the Jesuits. But once Jesuits began to work in colleges for the education of the young, Ignatius realized that such a mission cannot coexist with the practice of total dependence on the daily seeking of alms. Had he not also raised funds to support his own studies? For him mission was primary and he allowed colleges to have foundations. Today, unfortunately, all Jesuit works have become like colleges. Besides, benefactors may not be as numerous as in former times. So we have to live by our work. Arrupe realized this too. But to avoid the temptation of having an easy life depending on foundations and so of losing the spirit of poverty he wanted each Jesuit to experience poverty at least for some period, short or long, in his life. In spite of Arrupe’s repeated insistence I do not think that we take his advice seriously after the novitiate. On the contrary we seem to fall easy preys to the normal habits of a consumer society. Obviously Arrupe did not want the superiors to impose a poor life on the companions. So living poorly remains a personal option for each individual Jesuit. Today, apart from actually living with the poor, to live poorly in an institution can only mean living simply without being attached to any material goods that are not necessary for our mission. There have been proposal to separate the office where one works from the place where one lives. One can have all one needs for one’s work in the office. One can lively simply, if not poorly, at home. Here there is a dialectic between mission and personal option and there is always a temptation that the requirements of mission too easily excuse us from making a personal option. In the Ignatian dynamic in the Spiritual Exercises the temptation of Satan moves from a desire for riches to love for honours. This could be extended to jobs and titles. Unfortunately, careerism seems to be very much alive among many Jesuits in India, both for positions within and outside the society. One hears of lobbying, pressurizing, campaigning, etc. for oneself or for others. The excuse will of course be the intention of doing good to others. The influence of the political world is obvious here. One wonders how much of the spirit of the Society is found in such behaviour.

A second form of practicing poverty is, not only to be poor, but to opt for the poor. This means today, not only catering to their needs, but also to struggle with them for their liberation from oppressive economic and political structures. Such a struggle would involve the empowerment and support of the poor. There is a feeling today that enthusiasm for the promotion of justice is on the wane all over the world. GC 32 insisted that our promotion of justice must permeate all our apostolates like education, spiritual and pastoral ministry. I do not think that this has ever been achieved. In every province a few worked with the poor, the migrants, or the refugees, as the case may be, while the others carried on with their institutions. Now the involvement in the promotion of justice itself seems to be in question. Most task forces that came together recently for the preparation of GC 35 insist that what we need is not a new decree supporting the promotion of justice, but the better implementation of existing ones.

Prophecy to the Rich
Thanks to Marxist social analysis some see the promotion of justice in terms of a class struggle of the poor against the rich. An option is seen as taking sides in a conflict. But in the real world an option for the poor may actually mean a prophetic interaction with the rich and the powerful. Our goal is not the victory of the poor over the rich – which does not seem to happen in any case even after democratic revolutions like those in the Philippines – but a community with more equality and sharing of goods. For this, at some stage, we will have to convert at least some rich and have them on our side. While condemning the capitalists as a class, we must be open to talk to individuals who are open to a change of mind and heart and policies. Our non-violent struggle and agitation in the company of the poor must lead to a negotiation with the rich and the powerful. The problem with most of our liberation theologies is that, while they develop an ideology and a theology for the promotion of justice in society, they do not outline a concrete and viable strategy. While we regret the demise of socialism and condemn the domination of liberal capitalism we may have to negotiate with socially responsible capitalism – or rather try to make capitalism socially responsible. We cannot do so just by engaging in an unequal, abusive fight that alienates the other. One of the important strategies of Gandhi’s non-violent struggles was his readiness to negotiate and to progress step by small step. Arrupe has said:

Legitimate dissent should include, as far as possible, the quest for a normal communitarian relation; it should not strive to transfer itself into a sort of permanent institution in the Church, much less to introduce into the Christian community a dialectic of classes.

Arrupe affirms again:
The renewing action of Christ has not been merely a contestation with society. Christ has offered to the world a message which is a positive service rendered to humanity and supposing an authentic conversion of man on a religious basis. Christ has in fact emphasized three points: a) the necessity of aiding effectively all men who have need of us… b) solidarity of all Christians supporting and respecting each other mutually… c) liberty for every man to realize himself on the religious plane; for that reason he has defended the right of sinners to coexist with the just, since God lavishes on one as well as the other the goods of creation.

2. Justice with Faith Today. Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1980, p. 45.

As a matter of fact, probably proportionately, today more Jesuits work with the rich than with the poor. But their work cannot be called prophetic and challenging. Today I think that the poor are finding their voice. While helping and empowering them we also need to reach out to the non-poor prophetically seeking to convert them so that we can eventually build a community of freedom, fellowship and justice, which is the Reign of God that Jesus proclaimed. What we need is a holistic strategy of community building, even if it includes conflict and struggle. In a globalizing world such community building may need global networking, not only with agitators, however necessary, but also with lobbying and advocacy groups. A recent meeting of a group of Bishops from all over the world linking with many international agencies and meeting the leaders of the G8 countries is a good example.

Friendship with Mammon
I have indicated above how our institutions are no longer maintained and run with the foundations from rich benefactors but have to raise their own funds. Such fund raising is needed not only to serve the poor, but also for other expenses like the formation of the younger Jesuits and the maintenance of older ones. Further development of institutions and apostolates has also to be provided for. But, once we start raising money through our institutions there is always the temptation to raise more money than we need. Sometimes new institutions are started solely with the objective of making money. It is a tragedy that occasionally a few Jesuits seem to personally profit by this. But we have rules about the disposal of surplus income, which are not always observed. We are supposed to share, not hoard. The involvement of lay people in financial administration and total transparency can certainly be a help in avoiding the temptations of Mammon. It may also be good to set up fund-raising structures to raise the extra money we need for our work, maintenance and development from generous people than to (mis)use our institutions to raise money. If our accounts are transparent, people will probably be generous. We can hardly expect people to help us if they perceive us as rich.

Freedom to Love
If Religious life is seen primarily as a means of perfection, the vow of chastity is held up as the key vow. It is seen as a ‘consecration’ to God. Religious life itself is called ‘consecrated life’. This consecration is also related to baptismal consecration. The problem is that baptismal consecration is common to all Christians. Besides, if Religious life is focussed on mission, then the key vow may be obedience rather than chastity. In any case, the vow of chastity, by freeing us from commitment to one family frees us to love all. Today this ‘all’ would include God, the others and the universe or nature including the body.

The Religious is a person rooted in God. For a Jesuit, rootedness in God would not mean contemplative absorption in prayer, but ‘finding God in all things and all things in God’ in the spirit of the Contemplation to Obtain Love of the Spiritual exercises. This involves a discerning gaze upon the world that seeks, finds and does the will of God at every moment. In this sense chastity finds its fulfilment in obedience. I do not think that prayer is the strong point of the Jesuits today. The attitudes and decision making of most Jesuits are more worldly wise than God centred. In some case it may even go beyond worldly wisdom to political manipulation.

3. Ibid., pp.54-55.

One reason for the lack of interest in prayer may be the continuing focus on ‘western’ methods of prayer like the ‘Prayer of the Church’ or meditation, meaning rational reflection. India/Asia has it own methods of prayer, largely based on the yogic practices of breathing and concentration that involves the energy fields of the body and of nature. Yoga and its derivatives like Zen and Vipassana are today popular everywhere in the world, though they seem to be used more for attaining a superficial peace of mind than for the deeper experience of the divine. It is a pity that such Indian/Asian methods are not yet popular among us. Our community prayers are mostly the vocal repetition of set formulae. Moments of silence are suggested more as gimmicks than as real sadhana. Some one who starts a prayer will say “Let us keep silence and concentrate on our breathing.” This will go on for a minute. I wonder who benefits by this. Methods of concentration will not be worried abut time. Can we imagine a community sitting together in silence concentration for half-an-hour? How may of us bring our emotions, our energies and our body into prayer? How many of us still think that reasoning is prayer? Does not the very term ‘mental prayer’ suppose this? How many of us will feel comfortable using Bhajans or repetitive mantras for helping concentration? How many of us will discipline our bodies and our breathing?

A chaste person is also someone who has a healthy relation to the body and to nature. Today bodily penances have been largely abandoned – and it is good. We have to care for the body, taking a middle course between a consumeristic pampering of the body and treating the body merely as an instrumental object that is alienating. We must adopt a middle path as Buddha did. Here again Indian yoga can help us to live the ancient principle of ‘a sound mind in a sound body’. Integrating the body would involve integrating not only our bodily needs, sex and the emotions, but also integrating with the world of energy.

We have to live in harmony with nature. Science and technology look on nature as an object to be exploited for human benefit. While nature can survive without the humans, the humans cannot survive without nature. Yet our atmosphere is polluted, the resources of the earth are being depleted and its ecological balance is interfered with without any concern for present and future generations. Though this is a problem that concerns the whole of humanity, at the personal level we are certainly called to live a life in harmony with nature. This would also involve the way we integrate our sex. Most of us may still consider it bad or dirty. We may shrink from emotional expressions of love or simple corporal expressions like a touch or a kiss, though it is common in some cultures.

Integrating our sex would also involve the way we treat women. GC 34 gave us a special decree on our relationship with them. Treating them as equal human beings is a challenge, given the kind of social structures we still have in most cultures. Relating to them in a mature way, with respect and appreciation, without regarding them as sex objects who have to be exploited or whom we have to run away from is a dimension of our vow of chastity. In today’s context we also will have to protect them, especially the children, from the various abuses they are subjected to in society, even from before birth.

Living in Community
By the vow of chastity we renounce life in a family. The alternative is not living alone as a hermit. We Jesuits are called to live and work as ‘companions’ of Jesus and ‘friends’ in the Lord. Our vocation is not primarily communitarian. We may be sent as individuals to any place, at any time, to meet any important need of mission – like Francis Xavier. But the early companions insisted on being linked together by a superior on the one hand and by correspondence on the other. But given the prevailing individualism of post-modern culture, many individuals seem to need the support of a community today. The Jesuit community is not an ‘intentional community’ like a monastic community: a monk primarily joins a community. We are not a task oriented bureaucratic organization either. Nor are we an association of free individuals. We are not a natural community like a family. We share a common commitment to mission and we commune in the Lord as friends and companions. Community is not a given for us, but something that has to be constantly built up. Our primary community is the body of the whole society, not the particular group of individuals with whom we may happen to be living. We are a dispersed community – communitas ad dispersionem – linked together by a common commitment. It is an apostolic community that discerns together, even if each one has to act separately.

With the predominance of institutions today our communities are more stable. This will need appropriate structures. But it is good to keep in mind the basic freedom of each one. This means that the local community has to be constantly built up. Such building up supposes constant exchange of information, consultation, participation, and collaboration, as well as common prayer and recreation. Our communities then are not structure-centred, but person-centred. The focus should be, not on rules and regulations, but on exchange and collaboration. Our superiors are not managers or father figures, but coordinators and facilitators. We shall come back to this in the next section on obedience.

In a way, the primary community for a Jesuit is the world or the people to whom he is sent. For him there is no distinction of nationality, race, sex, caste or religion. He inserts himself easily anywhere. His vow of chastity enables him to open out to all – to love all. Love, for a companion of Jesus, means total self-gift, shown, not only in unconditional love, but in sharing and sacrifice, even unto death. He is a man for and with others, as Arrupe used to say often. For him clericalism will not be an obstacle, nor collaboration with others, religious and lay, men and women, a problem. Today we speak of common human communities. For a Jesuit on mission they will be a natural ambience. Asian cultures are said to be family and community oriented, as against the individualistic Euro-American and modern cultures. Such orientation, however, while facilitating solidarity and support, may lead to groupism. We will have to watch against this tendency in India/Asia.

Religious consecration is rooted in baptism. It finds its full expression in the Eucharist. The people celebrating the Eucharist are rooted in nature through food, linked to each other in fellowship and sharing of life through the symbol of food and rooted in God through Jesus, as his body. A Eucharist celebrated in the mission community is also a culmination of mission. In the Indian context, the Eucharist can be seen as an experiential realization of oneness – the advaita. The whole universe is united through the humans with God in Jesus as his body. This is the height of mystical experience that one can reach in this life, if it is really experienced, not merely symbolically celebrated, though the experience is also mediated by symbolic action in community.

Doing God’s Will
Whatever it may be for contemplative religious congregations, for the active ones focused on mission, obedience is the basic vow. Poverty and chastity facilitate a freer and more complete involvement in mission. A Jesuit vows obedience to seek, find and do the will of God. He commits himself to do this in the community. Discernment of God’s will is done in common, where possible. But in a ‘dispersed community’ the superior represents the community. Obedience therefore is primarily to God. The superior is not so much a mediator between God and the individual or community, but a facilitator. If a superior is not seriously engaged in seeking and finding God’s will in dialogue with the companion(s), then his authority to command is no longer credible –whatever the canonical provisions may be and practical prudence may dictate. The Complementary Norms say:

Both the superior who sends and the man who is sent will be more confident that the mission is truly from God if they have previously dialogued on this precise subject. (150) If an important issue has to be settled and the necessary conditions are verified, apostolic discernment in common is recommended as a privileged way of seeking the will of God. (151, #2)

Dialogue and common discernment then become keys to a proper exercise of obedience. Technically and legally “the discerning community is only consultative. The superior is still free.” (CN 151, #3) Such freedom, however, is meaningful only if the superior has confidential information concerning persons or circumstances that he is not free to disclose to the community.

The problem is that a real discernment in common is quite rare in my experience. Meetings of Jesuits do not go beyond the sharing of more or less informed opinion, when even this is not vitiated by prejudices and hidden agendas. For a proper discernment in common the following conditions must be fulfilled:
– the presence of a clear question;
– the search for all relevant data;
– the availability of the opinions of appropriate experts;
– reasons against and for;
– the necessary personal spiritual disposition: freeing oneself all inordinate attachments and prejudices;
– a free and open discussion with sufficient time;
– prayer, both personal and communitarian with an effort to listen to God;
– total confidentiality during the whole process to enable free discussion.

An authentic discernment in common will often be by wide consensus. Unfortunately, common discernment processes lack essential elements like the personal spiritual disposition of detachment and prayer. There is increasing politicization in decision making. People also seem to fall prey to principles like “The end justifies the means”. Instead of being prophetic in the world one tends to adapt oneself to its ways in the name of effectiveness. “Our ways of proceeding” then goes out through the window.

A serious discernment of the will of God will have some more preconditions. First of all we should have a clear idea of the community of the Kingdom which we wish to build in the world: a community of freedom, fellowship and justice. Secondly, we should have a clear, analytical knowledge of the world as it is. We have many tools of social analysis in the field. Most of them tend to be Marxist-inspired and focus on economics and politics. Our analysis must be integral taking into account also person and society, culture and religion. Thirdly, we must develop an instinct to discern the ‘signs of the times’ and to identify the presence of the Spirit and her action in people and peoples’ movements today.

Living in a situation of conflict between the rich and the poor, the oppressed and the oppressors and seeking to be prophetic in our interventions, apostolic decision making will be difficult. Arrupe warns us: “We must be prudent, then. But let us remember that prudence does not always mean caution; and it never means fear.” Arrupe, of course, paid for such fearlessness with much suffering. That also is a part of doing God’s will.

While we must avoid politicizing the process of discernment, an attempt to do God’s will in the world may lead us into the political arena. I think that as Jesuits and as Religious we should not be directly involved in party politics or in government. But we can certainly participate in peoples’ movements as animators and inspirers.

Conclusion
Does the Society have a future? Today vocations seem to be abundant in India. I will not be surprised if a crisis starts in another ten years as birth rates in Christian families go down with increasing urbanization and secularization. What then? What matters for a prophetic ministry is not number but quality. A single person can be a prophet in a given situation – as people like Gandhi, or Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela or John XXIII were. A single voice can be a deafening roar in the midst of chaos. Forms of our life and of the apostolate may change. Ignatius has given us a framework, supple enough to adapt to any situation. For us mission is primary; appropriate structures will follow. But as long as the Spirit of God is alive and active in the world, there will be calls to mission and there will always be some generous people to answer that call.

4. Ibid., p. 113.

Michael Amaladoss, S.J.