The object of this article is to study the vow of obedience as it was understood by the Founder, developed by the General Chapters and Superiors General and defined in the 1982 Constitutions and Rules. It is not the author ‘s intention to present a theology or spirituality of this vow, nor to study the virtue of obedience.
The thought OF the Founder
In the light of the Founder ‘s writings from 1809 to 1857, we can see that his thinking concerning the vow of obedience drew its inspiration from the teaching commonly held at his time. It is based on the teaching of the saints such as Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Teresa of Avila or the Venerable Caraffa, and especially on Ignatius of Loyola ‘s teaching concerning blind obedience. This thinking remained constant and almost rigid right to the end of his life.
1. THE NATURE OF OBEDIENCE
In the 1818 Constitutions and Rules, the Founder gives no definition of obedience. But he does cite reasons why this vow must be considered “the main vow, the most basic of all the vows”. [1] He makes his own the thinking of Saint Thomas Aquinas, for whom the vow of obedience is the one through which “we offer more to God than through the other vows”: “it includes all the others” and “the closer a thing causes us to come to the end for which it was established, the more perfect it is”. [2]
Nevertheless, when dealing with the scope of obedience, the Founder briefly indicates the essential elements of this vow: a. it requires submission of “the will and even of the intellect”; b. the superior is the one “who has the power to command in the name of the Lord”, and c. “one is much more assured of doing; the will of God by obeying than by doing anything else we may choose ourselves”. [3]
Obedience was always of capital importance in the religious and priestly life of the Founder. In his eyes, obedience was the “foundation of the entire religious life” [4]“; the Oblates must be “sons of obedience”. [5]The high esteem in which he held this virtue was already evident when he entered Saint-Sulpice Seminary. An example is found in the resolutions from his October 1808 retreat: “Absolute devotedness to the orders of the superiors, perfect submission to their least command, however puerile it seems to someone who has lived to be 26 in the fullest independence. […] Scrupulous obedience to the rule, even though I may seem over-meticulous in the eyes of my confreres”. [6] He adds: “Nothing against God is the wholly indispensable watchword of every Christian”. [7]
For him, obedience was a sure way of always doing God ‘s will and of ensuring one ‘s salvation. “Oh holy obedience! Sure road which leads to heaven, may I never deviate from the way you mark out for me, may I ever be docile to the least of your counsels! Yes, my dear brother, outside this path there is no salvation for us.” [8]
Once he became the founder of a congregation, it was a natural thing for him to exact total obedience from his Oblates. When he heard that Father Jacques Santoni had been talking about a disagreement they had had, he wrote to Father Pierre Aubert that religious life is to be found where “we know of nothing but obedience”. [9]
2. THE DISTINGUISHING MARKS OF OBEDIENCE
It is interesting to note that the same characteristics mentioned in the first edition of the 1818 Constitutions reappear in the second circular letter of February 2, 1857. [10] In these two documents, he requires that obedience should be prompt, humble and all-encompassing. These same distinguishing qualities would remain part of all the editions of the Rule until Vatican II.
a. Prompt obedience
The Founder seems to demand a certain promptness in carrying out the decisions of superiors. In 1842, he wrote to Father Bermond that he needed men of “absolute obedience […] who act promptly and willingly in opposition to their own ideas.” [11] It was his expectation that once a superior had taken a decision, the subjects would abandon their opinions and objections and engage themselves completely and immediately in carrying out what was ordered. They should set aside their arguing in such a way that, even if the decision seemed unreasonable, it would still be carried out. He wrote to Father Vincent Mille: “For God ‘s sake, never argue when it is a question of obedience. The best thing would always be to do simply what is prescribed.” [12]All debate and arguments should cease “when there is nothing more to discuss and when I have pronounced myself in the most categorical manner”. [13]
In 1836, in a letter to Father Casimir Aubert, the Founder uses an allegory to illustrate the importance of prompt obedience: “All I ask in these painful and perplexing circumstances is that the pilot be in charge during the storm, that the crew obey in silence […]”. [14] He demands this promptness because of the urgency called for in pursuing the work that God has entrusted to him.
b. Humble obedience
For the Founder, humility in obedience manifested itself especially by a complete lack of concern with regard to one ‘s personal tastes and opinions so as to accept the superior ‘s decision in complete submission. The detachment of a religious when faced with the decisions of superiors demands a profound humility. In 1831, he wrote to Father Hippolyte Courtès: “The root of the matter is the acceptance of obedience and absolute detachment as to whether one does this or that, whether this one or that one is the superior. Without that, you haven ‘t got anything.” [15]
The Founder demanded a humility which led the religious to avoid all grumbling, criticizing, and all recriminations once a superior had made a decision. It was the kind of humility which would demand a total renunciation of all internal preferences and tastes that might arise. In 1831, he wrote to Father Mille: “So if you renounce yourself entirely, together with your tastes and even the reasonings your mind may entertain, you will give a good account of yourself in the delicate task imposed on you”. [16]
As a result of a decision made by the Founder – a decision he could not carry out – Father Santoni, provincial superior of the mission in Canada, had submitted his resignation. It goes without saying that the Founder refused to accept it. He answered Father Santoni in the following words: “Read our holy Rules on obedience […] it is not a question of agreement […] this agreement of which you speak is not something for which one must look in relations with a superior. […] you would nonetheless still be lacking one essential thing, the grace of office […] To end the matter, in religion it is not a matter of agreement: obedience alone is known […]. And so in virtue of holy obedience I command you to continue to serve the Congregation in your present office of Provincial.” [17]
The submission of one ‘s will and even of one ‘s intelligence as demanded by the Founder presupposed in his Oblates a profound humility because it involved surrendering that which is most personal and precious in the human heart.
c. Comprehensive obedience
According to the Founder ‘s thinking, a superior could demand of a subject, either according to the vow or the virtue of the vow, any action which was not manifestly sinful. He wrote the following in a letter: “Only offending God is adverse to the Congregation. Everything else falls under obedience. […] You have committed yourself to everything that obedience can prescribe, and everything that is not sin comes under its domain. […] For the members the chapter is closed when they have received their obedience. […]” [18]
Obviously the Founder demanded this kind of obedience only when his decision was final, that is, “when they [the subjects] have received their obedience”. Obedience, then, was not limited to the articles of the Constitutions and Rules, but extended to all acts that were not sinful. For the Founder, “this principle is indisputable”. [19]
In virtue of this idea of obedience, the Founder invested his superiors with an almost unlimited power. To Father Henry Tempier who was about to conduct a canonical visit of the mission in Canada, he wrote: “Act with authority, yield to nobody when it is a matter of reestablishing regularity, obedience […]” [20] In another instance, he wrote to Father Mille: “The superior cannot bind himself to any conditions”. To our modern way of thinking, this view of obedience can seem blown out of all proportion. But if the Founder, like all founders of orders, demanded total availability from his subjects, it was in order that Christ ‘s mission entrusted to the Congregation through the Church might be brought to fulfillment.
3. MOTIVATION FOR OBEDIENCE
Why did the Founder stress the need for obedience so much? We can deduce a number of reasons for this. Suffice it to highlight only the following: imitation of Christ, the apostolate, unity of the Congregation, the peace and well-being of the members and the merit of the actions carried out.
a. In imitation of Christ
The Founder ‘s entire life was centered on imitating his Savior. While he was still a deacon at Saint-Sulpice, he wrote in a spiritual conference: “Not having imitated my model in his innocence, will it be denied me to imitate him in his devotion to his Father ‘s glory and our salvation?” [21] We can say that he was obsessed with Christ and that his only wish was to be conformed to him. It is thus not surprising that the first article of the 1818 Constitutions and Rules stresses this point: “The end of the Missionary Institute, styled ‘of Provence ‘, is firstly to form a group of priests […] who will strive to imitate the virtues of Jesus Christ, our Savior”. [22] In his 1831 retreat notes, he likewise wrote: “It is all there: They will strive to imitate the virtues and the examples of Jesus Christ, our Savior. If only one could engrave these words on one ‘s heart, have them written everywhere to have them always before one ‘s eyes”. [23] The Founder ‘s invitation to imitate Christ is an invitation to holiness. “To work seriously to become saints” is what he tells us in the 1818 Rule. [24]
b. The apostolate
For the Founder, obedience is a tool at the service of an apostolic endeavor. The vow is not primarily and exclusively ordained to the creation of a community. It is above all focused on carrying out a task. This is what emerges from a letter he wrote to Father Casimir Aubert: “All I ask in these painful and perplexing circumstances is that the pilot be in charge during the storm, that the crew obey in silence and that I be spared complaints that are out of place in a crisis when each one must carry out his task as best as he may in the post assigned to him”. [25] All that obedience asks is that the entire community prove faithful to the prompting of the Holy Spirit with regard to the mission being carried out.
c. The unity of the Congregation
As in the ancient monastic Orders, the Founder saw in obedience a means of establishing unity among the members, a unity through which they were all servants of each other. One of the basic values of obedience is the creation of the fraternal koinonia where each one strives to love God and his neighbor. The 1818 Constitutions and Rules mention that “obedience is the bond of union in every well-regulated society”. [26] In a letter to Father Jean-Baptiste Honorat, the Founder forges a link between obedience and the words of the Acts of the Apostles “one heart and one soul”: “[…] of one heart and mind, moved by the same spirit under that ordered regularity which marks you in the eyes of all as men living up to the exigencies of their rule, in obedience and charity, devoted to all works of zeal conformed to such obedience […]” [27] Writing to the community of Ceylon (Sri Lanka), he said: “Be united among yourselves, live in perfect obedience to the man who represents me, or rather who holds the place of God among you”. [28]
d. The peace and well-being of the subjects
Moreover, it would be through obedience that the Oblates would experience profound peace and interior happiness. He wrote to Father Mille about “[…] holy obedience alone which gives value to all your actions”. [29] This theme always emerges in those of his letters in which he is giving guidance to Oblates with a tendency to scrupulosity. To Father Jacques Antoine Jourdan who was being troubled by scruples, he wrote: “May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you! What ‘s this? Could you be without this precious peace […] Ah! if that were so, my good friend, it would indeed be your fault. […] Our Lord wishes that his children be led by the way of authority and obedience; it is thus that he manifests his very holy will: qui vos audit me audit.” [30] And to Father Mille, he wrote about “[…] finding contentment in all things and a real happiness under the gentle yoke of obedience”. [31]
The peace of which the Founder speaks flows from the fact that obedience offers the religious a sure means of knowing and faithfully carrying out the will of God. In his eyes, it is the only means of knowing God ‘s will and thus saving one ‘s soul.
e. The merit of our actions
In his retreat notes of 1814, he wrote: “I must certainly not forget that what made me suffer most at the time I was ill was finding myself in a position where I was acting wholly autonomously, in such a way that I did not know if my works, which lacked the merit of obedience, were agreeable to God”. [32] The same thought emerges in a letter to Father Mille when he speaks of “[…] obedience alone which gives value to all your actions”. [33]
4. THE NOTION OF OBEDIENCE IN THE FOUNDER ‘S WRITINGS
a. Ignatius of Loyola ‘s blind obedience
While it is true that the Founder took many articles of the 1818 Rule from the writings of Alphonsus of Liguori, it is surprising that he names him only twice, whereas he mentions Ignatius of Loyola by name five times. As Father Yvon Beaudoin expressed it so well, it would seem that the Founder took from Saint Alphonsus the letter of the Rule, but from Saint Ignatius he took “much more the spirit and spirituality than the letter”. [34] Father Beaudoin adds: “the Ignatian influence appears in the articles on obedience […]. [35]” In addition to that in his letters he “is always setting forth the Jesuits as the models to be followed”. [36]
Consequently, it is important to study Ignatian obedience if we want to understand the obedience that the Founder demanded from his first Oblates.
The obedience Saint Ignatius demanded from his followers was the kind described by the phrase “blind obedience”, an idea which he expounded to the fathers and brothers in Portugal in a still-famous letter of 1553. The Letter on Obedience made a significant impact on the lives of religious for the last four hundred years. The majority of religious congregations of the active life adopted the Ignatian idea of obedience.
The idea of blind obedience is made up of the following components [37]:
1. Obedience is extolled as the foundation of all other virtues, and only faith can provide the motivation for the kind of submission that expresses total trust in the Lord. The Letter makes reference to Saint Paul who places obedience at the heart of the Christian mystery: “He was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8). It also refers to Luke 10:16: “Who listens to you, listens me.” It is this passage from Luke that the Founder used in his letter to Father Jourdan quoted above. [38] Faith alone must rule the attitude of the religious in this matter.
2. Then, Saint Ignatius ‘ Letter focuses on the self-sacrifice required to submit one ‘s will to the will of the superior. Obedience is “the gift of one ‘s will, surrendering itself in the light of faith in order to do God ‘s will more surely”. [39] Without this surrendering of self-will, obedience is without substance.
3. Saint Ignatius teaches that, for the religious, obedience attains its perfection only when it implies making the sacrifice of one ‘s own judgment by conforming it to the will of the superior. It is not only a question of subduing one ‘s own will, but also of convincing oneself that the order given is good, even if one ‘s own personal judgment deems the opposite to be true. Only a leap of faith could render such a sacrifice possible and save it from appearing totally absurd. It is at this point that we come to the main idea presented by the Letter. Seven times Saint Ignatius reminds his readers “that the religious must close his eyes to the qualities and the defects of his superior”. And seven times more he presents “this blindness as only the dark side or the product of a vision that only faith can fill with the splendor of light”. [40] Saint Ignatius teaches that, because of the interdependence of one ‘s faculties, it is psychologically possible for the intelligence to commit itself to a decision which is not evidently so. “On the one hand, it is the intelligence ‘s gift to incline the will to carry out an act which it presents. On the other hand, the will acts on the intelligence by directing it to concentrate on motives that may modify its judgment.” [41] It is precisely this lack of conformity which makes obedience intolerable and ineffective. Obedience of the judgment is required because it alone renders obedience pleasing to God.
It is obvious that the Founder was influenced by this notion of Ignatian blind obedience with regard to government in the Congregation. In his writings, we find all the elements presented by Saint Ignatius as the following quotes reveal: “[…] but it would be necessary for the will to submit interiorly [42]; “[…] our obedience must submit the will and even the intellect”. [43] Toward the end of his life, he wrote in his February 2, 1857 circular letter: “They will be especially punctilious in obedience […] to the extent that it could be said they have no will of their own, but have given it into the hands of those placed in authority over them […]”. [44] In this same document, he makes his own the famous words of Saint Ignatius: “In their hands, we should be like soft wax which takes on the form they wish. We should consider ourselves as lifeless corpses which have no power to move of themselves.” [45] Immediately after this, he quotes Saint Francis-Xavier who said: “You must submit your will and your judgment to your superiors […]”. [46]
4. What can be said, then, about one ‘s duty to devote the necessary reflection to discerning the will of God before making a decision? According to Saint Ignatius, obedience does not excuse us from the duty of due reflection. The superior is not infallible and he could be lacking in prudence. He recognizes the right to “remonstrate”, a right dating from the most ancient monastic tradition. [47] The superior should seek to make himself clearly understood and invite his religious to react. On the other hand, it is the duty of the religious to help the superior in carrying out his responsibility by offering him advice and counsel, while at the same time maintaining in his internal forum an attitude of openness to allow the person in authority to have the last word.
Saint Ignatius takes this consultation one step further by allowing his religious to offer the superior their advice and opinions. But after the superior has taken his decision: “If, after the superior has taken his decision, the person dealing with him is still convinced that a different course of action is called for or would believe he had good reason to do so even without having this deep conviction, after three or four hours, he could tell the superior that this or that would be a good thing while maintaining in his speech and his words the kind of decorum which would exclude any dissent or disagreement by not rejecting the decision already made. And even if the superior has stood by his decision once or twice, when a month or more has elapsed, the religious could tell the superior once again of his thinking. […] Indeed, with time, experience becomes aware of many things and it even happens that things are seen in a totally different light by the same person.” [48]
In spite of the Founder ‘s apparent sternness in his demands concerning obedience, he still remained open to and called for suggestions from his followers. In the 1818 Rule, he wrote: “Nevertheless, it is permitted to state the reasons which one might have for being disinclined to undertake a certain duty. But when this has been done, with all modesty and submission, the Superior ‘s decision ought to be accepted as a manifestation of God ‘s will.” [49] When Father Bruno Guigues was named bishop, the Founder received a number of objections to this appointment. To Father Jean-Fleury Beaudrand, he replied: “One could wish that this might not happen. Very well, up to that point, there was nothing to blame. They wrote to prevent this promotion from taking place and adduced their reasons accordingly. This was still all right. It was permissible to have this opinion. But when […] the affair was settled, then their not knowing what to think, uttering cries of revolt, going so far as […] making remarks derogatory to the respect and obedience due to superiors […] all this was lunacy.” [50]
The Founder did not seem to tolerate the questioning of decisions already taken by superiors. To Father Mille, he wrote: “For God ‘s sake, never argue when it is a question of obedience. The best thing would always be to do simply what is prescribed.” [51] To Father Eugene Guigues for whom one of the decisions taken by the Founder seemed impossible to execute, he wrote: “You give out reams of reasons when there is nothing more to discuss, and when I have pronounced myself in the most categoric manner. Yet you should know that such a procedure is never admissible […]” [52]
It seems that the reason the Founder would not listen to observations presented to him after a decision was made was because they almost always came in the form of criticism, blaming others and grumbling: “[…] complaints. I am decided not to listen to them.” [53] “I detest too the habit of complaining without reason about an infinite number of things, as if with us each and every subject were called to govern the Congregation.” [54] It is especially the grumblers who draw down on themselves his sternest rebukes: “Cursed be the murmurers, […] they are veritably the fiends of hell […].” [55]
In the thinking of the Founder, once a superior had taken a decision, the religious was expected to take action since obedience is especially an aspect of action and essentially apostolic. Obedience is required for the most perfect realization of the apostolic endeavor. It focuses only on fidelity of the community to the promptings of the Spirit and is indispensable as a tool to carry out the mission.
b. The Founder ‘s character and nobility.
Two other factors had a contribution to make in molding the Founder ‘s thinking with regard to obedience. In the document he wrote for Mr. Duclaux when he entered the seminary, Eugene described himself as having a lively and impetuous disposition. He added: “I am a lively and impetuous type of character. When I want something I want it very badly, I am impatient of the least hold-up and I find delays unbearable.” [56] He reacts very strongly against any obstacles that stand in the way of the achieving of his objectives: “[…] and I would not let anything stand in my way to overcome even the most difficult obstacle.” [57] At the very suggestion of an obstacle in his path, his whole being rises up to confront it. And if the obstacle still remains, he is all the more convinced that if people are opposed to what he wants, it is only because of some greater good. We can add that he is inclined to sternness, is very determined to never allow himself to relent in the least, but he also has a strong inclination not to tolerate this in others. “I cannot accept the least compromise in anything to do with duty.” [58] The mettle in his character had, no doubt, a strong influence on his notion of obedience and his practice of it throughout his life.
In addition, Eugene originated from the nobility. Throughout his childhood, he was surrounded by servants. During his years of exile, he socialized with Italy ‘s nobility and no doubt absorbed certain attitudes common to the people of that social class. During his exile, he received a religious formation from the two Zinelli brothers, Jesuits who probably introduced him to the teachings of Saint Ignatius. All of these experiences played their part in making of Eugene the leader that God was training up for ministry in the Lord ‘s vineyard.
The notion of blind obedience was so widespread in the religious communities of the Founder ‘s day that consultation and discussion were often overlooked in the exercise of obedience. This is the situation which prevailed for the four centuries which led up to the Second Vatican Council. In the renewal which preceded and especially followed the Council, Saint Ignatius ‘ blind obedience did not enjoy a good press in religious writings. M. Dortel-Claudot expressed this well in his exhaustive study on obedience when speaking of communities of women: “[…] before the Council, the authority of the local superior weighed too heavily on the sisters, stifling their personalities and smothering their endeavors”. [59] The same thing could be said for communities of men, especially in the period which preceded 1939-1945 and the Second World War. Nevertheless, this kind of obedience made a contribution to a great number of religious and to the spreading of the Kingdom of God to the four corners of the globe.
Obedience in the Congregation from 1861 to 1965
After the Founder ‘s death in 1861, the General Chapters and the circular letters of the Superiors General elaborated and commented on the notion of Oblate obedience while trying to adapt it to ever-changing social conditions.
To date, the Congregation has celebrated thirty-two General Chapters and the Superiors General have written more than three hundred circular letters. These documents constitute an inexhaustible source of light illuminating all aspects of Oblate life.
1. THE GENERAL CHAPTERS
Before Vatican II, four Chapters, the Chapters of 1850, 1867, 1908 and 1926, worked on revisions of the Rule. After Vatican II, two other Chapters were obliged to recast the Rule. The 1966 Chapter drew up a new text of the Constitutions and Rules in order to bring them into line with the directives of Vatican II. The 1980 Chapter worked out and approved the definitive text.
The majority of the Chapters that were held from 1818 to 1992 dealt with the problem of obedience. Their legislation treated especially of the scope of the demands made by the vow of obedience. It was the 1850 Chapter which inserted in the Constitutions and Rules the phrase “among us the vow of obedience is made”; the Constitutions and Rules of 1826 make no explicit mention of us making this vow. The Chapter also legislated on questions such as permission to hear confessions or to publish a work as well as on several aspects of the local superior ‘s responsibility and on some other aspects of the vow. [60]
The 1898 Chapter declared that among us the vow of obedience is absolute, that is, that it cannot be limited by any conditions or restrictions. Consequently, the Superior General may assign any Oblate to any ministry which the good of the Congregation may require. [61]
But it was the Chapters of 1908 and 1926 which were responsible for bringing the Constitutions and Rules in line with the new decisions taken by the Holy See. In 1901, in a document entitled Normae, the Congregation for Religious had published a list of changes that all religious congregations had to make to their Constitutions. To conform with these norms, the 1908 Chapter introduced a definition of the vow of obedience using the same terms as appear in the document. Indeed, the original Rule contained no definition of the vow. Consequently, it was difficult to distinguish between the vow and the virtue of obedience. [62]
In addition to that, the old Rule did not define the scope of the vow, that is “when is one bound by the vow itself as opposed to the virtue of obedience?” [63] As a result, two articles were added, drawn verbatim from these norms. [64] “The professed religious is bound to obey by reason of his vow, when, and only when, a lawful superior commands him ‘in the name of our Lord ‘ or ‘in virtue of holy obedience ‘. When the superior simply gives an order in the usual way, it is only by the virtue of obedience that the religious is bound to obey” (C and R of 1908, art. 236). “Rarely, cautiously, and prudently will superiors give a command in the name of obedience, and only for a grave cause ? that is to say, when it seems to be called for by circumstances of very great importance to the community or an individual. It is desirable that a formal precept of the kind should be given in writing, or at least in the presence of two witnesses” (C and R of 1908, art. 237). Finally, to conform with the new directives, the 1908 Chapter defined the obligation imposed by the Rule and the obedience due to superiors. [65]
In 1917, for the first time in the Church ‘s history, a Code of Canon Law containing all the Church ‘s legislation was published. In the wake of the publication of the Code, the decree of the Congregation for Religious of June 26, 1921 bound all religious congregations to undertake to revise their constitutions to bring them in line with the new Code. In addition to that, on October 26, 1921 this same Congregation stated that, in doing this work, only those constitutions contrary to the Code were to be changed and, as much as possible, “the wording of the Code itself should be used”. [66] Such was the task carried out by the 1926 Chapter. Since the 1908 Chapter had already revised the Constitutions and Rules according to the norms of 1901, the 1926 Chapter “in addition to a few corrections in form […] changed the articles on the scope of the vow of obedience, on obedience to the Pope and the bishops, on the binding force of the Rules, obedience to Superiors, vice-superiors, presentation for Orders, permission to hear confessions, obedience to the prefect of the sacristy and permission to publish works.” [67]
Without commenting on all the revisions made, it would still prove useful to stress the following points:
a. With regard to the scope of the vow, the 1926 Chapter added to the 1908 text the words “in explicit terms” to signify that for it to be a matter of the vow, it must be “a genuine command about a specific thing and not on religious life in general”. [68]
b. The Chapter determined that one must obey the Pope “even in virtue of the vow” as supreme superior of the Congregation. It added an article on obedience to the bishops, not in virtue of the vow, but in the virtue of obedience. [69]
c. This same Chapter also determined that all the members of the Congregation, both subjects and superiors, must live according to the requirements of the Constitutions and strive toward the perfection of their own specific state. To achieve this end, Oblates must place their will in the hands of their superiors and humbly submit to all their brothers who have authority over them. [70]
2. CIRCULAR LETTERS
The majority of circular letters were written on the occasion of General Chapters, either as reports on the state of the Congregation at the time the Chapter was held or as commentaries on decisions taken by the Chapter. Obviously it is impossible to make an exhaustive study here of the teaching on obedience as contained in these letters. Suffice it to highlight certain letters so as to stress their relationship to the practice of obedience in the Congregation.
a. Ten years after the death of the Founder, his successor, Father Joseph Fabre, wrote a circular letter on the occasion of the publication of the acts of the 1867 Chapter. In it he reminded the Oblates that obedience should be “prompt, humble and comprehensive, not only effective, but affective as well; these are the qualities that the obedience of a good religious should have. Does ours contain these qualities?” [71] He pointed out that the contemporary period presented “grave problems” [72] with regard to obedience. He then reminded his Oblates of the Founder ‘s teaching on affective obedience, the kind that submitted not only one ‘s will but also one ‘s judgment to one ‘s lawful superiors.
This circular had as its goal to remind Oblates of the beauty and holiness of their vocation and their corresponding duty to respond generously to this calling.
b. The following year, he wrote a circular letter to the local superiors and directors of residences. [73] In it, Father Fabre explained the mission of the local superior and the obligations inherent in it. The letter has the same quality as that of the Founder ‘s letters because it springs from his heart and seems rather to be an outpouring of his paternal heart and soul rather than an expression of his authority as superior. After telling the superiors that they should “maintain a family spirit”, [74] spread the “love or our holy vocation”, [75] “concern themselves with the obligation they have of maintaining in their houses the spirit of charity among the members who make up this family”, [76] Father Fabre reminds them that “we all make up one family; obedience alone assigns us to the community of which we should be a part. Our duty is no doubt to devote ourselves to the well-being of this house and to maintain with those of our brothers who live with us relationships that spring from a charity which is steadfast and a part of everyday life.” [77] He fears that “the spirit of individualism and insubordination which reigns in our world might have penetrated too deeply into our communities.” [78] That is why he asks of superiors: “Example! Example! My dear fathers, […] keep in mind the irresistible efficacy of this kind of action within our communities.” [79] He strongly recommends that the superior “must make himself loved in his house and gain the trust of his subjects, […] the reason he is superior is for the welfare of his brother Oblates”. [80]
Concerning the duties of the superior, Father Fabre gave the following instructions: “Let him observe the Rule; that is his duty, but he should know how to make bearing this yoke as sweet as possible. Let his actions be those of a loving father and not those of a master issuing commands. Let him take an authentic interest in each one of his religious; let him always welcome them with kindness; sympathize with them in their sorrows and miseries; let his words not come solely from his mind, but let the perception be that they flow from a devoted heart.” [81] Finally, he asks of the superiors that they “allow each one, within the confines of the Rule, the necessary freedom to do good in holy ministry and also to fulfill the tasks for which he may be responsible in the house or outside it […] It is not fitting that he should intervene directly in everything and get personally involved in everything. Let him keep his place.” [82]
This letter is worthy of being read and meditated by all Oblates who hold office as local superiors. Father Fabre wants to mitigate the harshness of obedience by exhorting superiors to practice the virtues of gentleness, kindness and charity in the exercise of their roles. This letter is brimming with common sense, tenderness and Gospel charity. This: same advice was repeated in another circular letter; which was also addressed to local superiors. [83]
c. In his report to the 1887 Chapter, Father Fabre made the observation that obedience was on the wane in the Congregation. “As religious, we must above all hold obedience in high esteem. Now the understanding, love and practice of this basic virtue are failing and have declined considerably. People never lose sight of their rights, real or imagined. […] Authority is considered harsh; it is found to be worthy of blame and is misunderstood.” [84] He adds that we are dealing here not merely with “a trend, but with a cruel reality”. [85] He attributes this lack of obedience to “the profusion of external works”, which has become “one of the great obstacles to the observance of the Rule”. [86] To remedy such a situation, he reminds his Oblates: “In a Congregation, there cannot be and there must not be any personal works. All works must be carried out according to the Rule, that is, according to obedience […].” [87] It is, therefore, necessary that all Oblates submit their activities to “the monitoring Influence of obedience”. [88]
d. Father Louis Soullier ‘s letter of March 26, 1894 [89] has a totally different flavor. It sets forth a military notion of religious obedience, a notion characterized by remoteness and coldness in the relationship between subjects and superiors. “In an army, the army is only as good as its discipline. Among us, in the upper levels, discipline consists in just and worthy government exercised in the name of a set, authoritative rule; […] on the lower echelons, it consists in a noble, filial obedience […] which makes the role of superiors easy by offering a respect which is deep and tender […]. Discipline consists in esprit de corps, love of the flag, valiant loyalty to all orders given ? even if they involve great danger, suffering and even death.” [90]
In the same letter, Father Soullier states that the religious should be obedient to the Rule, but always as it is interpreted for him by his superior. “The vow of obedience made by subjects is to the Rule as the superiors apply it and not to the Rule as independent of the superior ‘s will. The living authority overrides the dead letter.” [91]
He specifies, moreover, that a candidate for religious life cannot set as a condition sine qua non the right to be assigned to the foreign missions. He stresses: “When the vow of obedience is made, it is made without any conditions attached […] there are no exceptions”. [92] However, he does add that “those who are truly called to it by God can rest assured that they will be sent to the missions”, because “a person ‘s personal inclination will never be absolutely thwarted because they are never entirely separated from the natural giftedness of a person”. [93]
e. In his circular letters of March 19, 1899 and July 2, 1905 [94], Father Cassien Augier mourned the state of rebellion that existed in the Congregation: “Intolerance of any restriction […] a life made up of superficial impressions and frenetic activity shot through with the natural and human mentality [brings it about] that the house stands to become nothing more than a hotel, where people come together to eat and sleep”. [95]
f. In his March 19, 1927 [96] circular letter, Bishop Augustin Dontenwill promulgated the decisions of the 1926 General Chapter. He devoted a considerable portion of this document to the vow of obedience. He reiterated the commonly held teaching of the time which was the teaching of Saint Ignatius. After having made reference to the fact that “the vow of obedience is the religious vow par excellence”, [97] he added that the holy Rule “distinguishes three levels of obedience: effective obedience, affective obedience and the submission of one ‘s judgment”. [98] “Effective obedience has to do with external obedience; one does what one has been ordered to do and avoids doing what one has been forbidden to do” [99]; “affective obedience goes one step further; the will yields to what has been ordered and the individual ‘s soul complies with the exterior act”. [100] Then, he holds forth at greater length on the submission of one ‘s judgment. This takes place when the individual leads his will to see “God in his superior when it is his order that you receive and that you accept it as being such. Now that is the very object of obedience of judgment.” [101] If obedience were lacking this quality, it would be imperfect; it would be robbed of its laurels, deprived of its merit, despoiled of any supernatural character”. [102] According to this teaching, “submission of one ‘s judgment would always be not only possible, but necessary if we intend to obey in a supernatural way”. [103]
g. Finally, in his August 15, 1951 [104] letter, Father Léo Deschâtelets defined Oblate obedience: “There is only one way of obeying as Oblates and that is in a way which leaves no more room for self-will, in short, an affective and effective obedience to the will of God as made known to us by our superiors. It is only at this personal cost that one becomes an Oblate.” [105] This kind of obedience is necessary to better accomplish the task assigned to us by the Church. In the Church, good can be done “only by maintaining within one ‘s grasp the wills of all subjects to launch them in the direction of accomplishing the most difficult tasks”. [106]
In his December 8, 1953 letter [107], Father Deschâtelets reported the decisions taken by the 1953 Chapter. In number 9 of this document, the Chapter addressed the question of obedience: “Since religious obedience is not well understood and personal independence is widespread, the Chapter was asked to remedy the situation”. In answer to this request, the Chapter responded: “For their part, let the subjects keep in mind the true reason for obedience and the absolute necessity of obedience, and humbly submit to all the legitimate orders of their superiors and strive to identify fully with their spirit”. [108]
In conclusion, it is worth noting that all the decisions of the General Chapter as well as all the circular letters of the Superiors General where this problem was treated were all motivated by an effort to address the abuses spread throughout the Congregation. The only document which treats of this subject in the light of a positive teaching is Father Fabre ‘s March 5, 1872 letter. That is the reason why this vow was not the subject of an in depth study from the time of the Founder ‘s death. The texts simply repeat Saint Ignatius ‘ traditional teaching on blind obedience while making it more palatable by admonishments to the superiors, encouraging them to be kind, prudent and to carefully watch over the common good of the community entrusted to them.
In addition to this, all these documents stress the obligation of obeying the decisions of the superior in all matters that are not sinful. The superior ‘s authority seems unlimited, even if it is to be exercised according to the Constitutions and Rules. The adjective “comprehensive” as applied to the obedience subjects owe their superiors implies that superiors are always infallible in their decisions and always are an expression of God ‘s will. However, there is rarely any mention made of the superior ‘s obligation to seek the will of God and of taking the necessary means to discover that will. It is true that all superiors do have their councils to assist them in this endeavor, but in the statements of General Chapters and the circular letters, no mention is made of the obligation to consult the community or the individual concerned. It is not that blind obedience is a mistaken notion; indeed, it has made a contribution to the sanctification of a considerable number of religious. But it needs to be complemented by the kind of discernment required of a superior in making a decision. Up until this point, authoritative documents had stressed the obedience due to the decisions of superiors. During this period, the word of the person in authority was the voice of God and very little leeway was allotted for an active contribution coming from subjects. [109]
From Vatican II to the present
With Vatican II and the new awareness of the need for a discernment which should precede decisions made by religious superiors, the notion of obedience regained its equilibrium. First, the Council reminded religious that they should make a total offering of their will to God and that they should submit to their superiors with humility and reverence according to the Constitutions and Rules in a spirit of faith and love with regard to the will of God. [110] Then, it added: “[Superiors] should [… foster] in them a spirit of voluntary submission. […] They should train their subjects to cooperate with them by applying themselves to their ordinary duties and to new undertakings with an active and responsible obedience. Superiors therefore ought to listen to their subjects willingly and ought to invite their cooperation as something beneficial to the institute and the Church, retaining, however, their own authority to decide and to prescribe what is to be done.” [111] This change of orientation towards an obedience which included dialogue with subjects as an integral feature upset a number of the Council fathers. More than four hundred and fifty of them demanded that this notion be struck from the document because of the democratic spirit it might spread within communities.
Vatican II obliged all religious congregations to renew themselves according to the spirit and the principles it had adopted. To achieve this end they would have to hold three General Chapters, if necessary, in order to come up with a definitive text before 1980.
1. THE 1966 GENERAL CHAPTER AND FATHER DESCHATELETS ‘ CIRCULAR LETTER
The Oblates were one of the first congregations in the Church to respond to this desire expressed by Vatican II. In January of 1966, hardly a month and a half after the closure of the Council, the Oblates held a Chapter which had as its objective the renewal of the Congregation. This Chapter completely remodeled the Constitutions and Rules. It stated that the section on obedience “represents the greatest development in a renewed understanding of our vows”. [112]
In 1968, Father Deschâtelets wrote a circular letter entitled “The Spirit of Renewal in the Congregation” [113] in which he listed and laid out all the elements of renewal contained in the decisions of the 1966 General Chapter. The main points contained in the letter are:
a. “The Church […] delegates some of its authority to the community ? superiors and members ? to help it in its mission of proclaiming the Gospel. It could not be otherwise.”
b. “In a community […] the principle and invisible bond fusing all wills into one […] is the Spirit of Christ […].”
c. “This internal unity […] must find an external expression. It needs a visible sign. It needs an animator. […] This leader, this sign of unity in Christ is the superior […].”
d. “The superior […] invites the latter (subjects) to work with him. Far from imposing decisions from on high, he encourages his team to lay the groundwork for them along with him and, once his decisions are taken, it supports their translation into action. […] He leaves open to them a latitude for initiative and personal action […].”
e. “The relation of the head with its members constitutes the exercise of authority; on the other hand, the relationship of the members with the head offer the foundation for obedience.”
f. “The superior is not above, much less outside the community, […] it is a case of everyone seeking the will of God and helping each other to carry it out under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. […] The spirit of charity makes their collaboration easier and renders more palatable their acceptance of decisions which, even after a frank and open dialogue, could remain in conflict with their own personal feelings in the matter.” [114]
Father Deschâtelets ends this section of his letter by asking, “does it not lead us to rethink the service that [obedience] must render in unity and charity?” [115]
2. THE 1980 CHAPTER
The 1980 Chapter brought to a close the enormous task of renewal of our Constitutions and Rules. The text was approved by the Congregation for Religious by their decree of July 3, 1982. The theme of obedience was treated in Constitutions 24 to 28 and Rules 18 and 19. These constitutions and rules defined Oblate obedience in the light of the principles of Vatican II while integrating a number of the principles of the 1966 Chapter. That is why the 1966 commentary on the Constitutions, The Congregation Renewed, stands alongside the definitive text by Father Fernand Jetté, O.M.I., The Apostolic Man [116], as one of the two best commentaries on Oblate obedience in the contemporary world.
In these new Constitutions, “the same spirit is found, but with a new insistence on each one ‘s commitment, responsibility and ‘freedom fortified by obedience ‘.” [117] A balance is struck and Vatican II ‘s principles of renewal are fully integrated into the life of the Congregation. Obedience does not only consist of the duty of the individual religious to obey all the decisions taken by his superiors. It also requires that the basis for every decision be laid through discernment – either community discernment or the discernment of the superior with the individual concerned – in order to discover together what is the will of God. Without diminishing the superior ‘s authority, the obligation to obey is now balanced by the duty of the superior to seek this will in the context of discernment and dialogue, while maintaining his right to make the final decision.
The 1982 Constitutions preserve intact the spirit of obedience “but with a new insistence on each one ‘s commitment, responsibility and ‘freedom fortified by obedience ‘.” The section which deals with this vow contains five constitutions and two rules. The 1986 Chapter added to Constitution 26 a paragraph which obliges religious to obtain the permission of the major superior to publish anything of a religious nature. The addition was suggested by the Congregation of Religious in order to bring the Constitutions and Rules into conformity with the new 1983 Code of Canon Law. [118]
Since its foundation, the Congregation has accumulated as part of its family heritage a number of important landmarks which it had to complement by integrating the new insights of Vatican II. The task of the 1980 Chapter was to integrate the principles of Vatican II with the Oblate patrimony.
3. THE MAIN IDEAS ON OBEDIENCE
According to the new Constitutions and Rules of 1982, then, what are the dominant ideas which should inspire every Oblate in the realm of obedience?
a. Just as in the Founder ‘s case, obedience remains a fundamental means of imitating Christ. Vatican II tells us: “After the example of Christ, who came to do his Father ‘s will […] religious moved by the Holy Spirit subject themselves in faith to those who hold God ‘s place, their superiors […]” [119] Thus the first article on obedience in the Constitutions quite naturally begins with these words: “Christ ‘s food was ‘to do the will of the one who sent him ‘ (John 4:34)” (C 24). It follows, then, that the theological basis of our obedience is the very obedience of Christ. It must be rooted in the attitude of Christ and be in conformity with his attitude. As a result, with Christ we live his obedience to the Father and we reproduce the pattern in ourselves. Following in his footsteps, we identify with him in the total abandonment of himself to the Father. He had only one desire: that of pleasing God. Our obedience must always be based on the obedience of Christ who remains the foundation and reason for the existence of our vow.
b. Obedience leads us to enter into the plan of salvation of God. The Oblates make a vow to “spend ourselves without reserve to accomplish his plan of salvation” (C 24). In his exhortation, Evangelica testificatio, Paul VI said: “By making this profession […] you make a total offering of your will and you enter more steadfastly and more surely into his plan of salvation”. [120] Later on, he picks up the same theme: “It is a matter of putting themselves at the service of the Father ‘s plan of love in the persons of their brothers”. [121] The purpose of our acts of obedience is to allow God to “fulfill through us his unique plan of salvation of men in Jesus Christ. In other words, through obedience we share in Christ ‘s mission.” [122]
c. Obedience remains a mystery of faith. The Constitutions tell us: “[…] through faith we accept the authority [the superior] has been given” (C 26). This vow remains a mystery to be lived in the obscurity of faith and through love for Christ. A faith vision of our life and the world we live in always helps when it comes to obedience because “that gives us no other option than to turn to God”. [123] Our obedience casts us headlong into the heart of the mystery of Christ by making our own the detachment and death to self that this vow entails. This faith must be present at all stages of obedience: First of all the seeking of God ‘s will, then the willing acceptance of decisions made by superiors and, especially on those occasions when the vow demands it, detachment and death to self. We must leave behind our own ways to walk in the ways of the Father.
d. The vow of obedience puts us under the obligation to seek the will of God. “As individuals […] we have the responsibility to seek the will of God” (C 26). God communicates his bidding to religious and makes his will known to them. Consequently, the individual Oblate should take advantage of all the means that God uses to make his will known. The Constitutions tell us what these means are. Some of them are common to all Christians seeking the will of God because the religious is first and foremost a Christian like other followers of Christ. Therefore, “certain means used by God to communicate his will to religious will be the same ones he uses to make his will known to any other Christian”. [124] Other means will be specific to religious life because the commitment to religious life, which is a second baptism, identifies the religious more closely with Christ and offers him means specific to his state of life to discover the will of the Father.
– Common means. First and foremost, God speaks to us through means common to all the disciples of Christ.
The most common of these means, the one that should be at the head of the list is obviously Sacred Scripture: “[…] The Word of God nourishes our spiritual life and apostolate. […]” (C 33,§ 2).
Next is the Church which “earnestly appeals to the ministers whom she herself enrolled in the cause of her divine Spouse, to do all in their power, by word and example, to rekindle the flame of faith that has all but died in the hearts of so many of her children” (Preface). That is why our Constitutions bind us “to obey the Holy Father […]” (C 27).
In third place, we can group together the world, events of daily life, others, the poor, etc. “Our life is governed by the demands of our apostolic mission and by the calls of the Spirit already dwelling in those to whom we are sent” (C 25, § 2).
– Specific means. Nevertheless, the religious is a Christian with a special vocation. He belongs to a religious congregation. Naturally, certain means of revealing the will of God are specific to religious life “in the sense that God does not use these specific means to reveal his will to the Christian who is not a religious”. [125] Means specific to the religious are the following:
The most important means of all is obviously that of the Constitutions and Rules. “By our vow of obedience we assume the obligation to obey […] our lawful Superiors in any matter pertaining directly or indirectly to the observance of the Constitutions and Rules” (C 27). The next Constitution adds: “Members will conform their lives and their missionary activities to the Constitutions and Rules of the Congregation” (C 28). The Constitutions have always been the primary subject of the vow of obedience. That is why during the taking of vows we are handed a copy of the Constitutions and Rules and have these words addressed to us: “Do this and you will live”.
The second means specific to Oblate life is the superior, a term which must be understood to include superiors at all the different levels: general, provincial and local. “By our vow of obedience we assume the obligation to obey […] our lawful superiors […]” (C 27). The Constitutions remind us that the superior is “a sign or our unity in Christ Jesus” (C 26) and “a sign of the Lord ‘s loving and guiding presence in our midst” (C 80). Father Jetté reminds us, “A religious community ‘s unity is largely based on their activity and on our attitude in their regard”. [126]
Finally, the Constitutions indicate that the community is a medium for expressing the will of God. “Decisions which express this will are best reached after community discernment and prayer” (C 26 § 1). What is involved here is not the establishing of a democratic system where all decisions are taken on the basis of a majority vote. The Constitutions are clear on this point: “We will give our loyal support once a decision has been made and, in a spirit of cooperation and initiative, we will devote our talents, our activity, our very lives, to our apostolic mission in the Church” (C 26 § 2). However, Rule 18 [R 26a in CCRR 2000] does have this to say: “In major decisions and in matters concerning the life and mission of the whole community, there will be a process of discernment conducive to consensus”. To foster this kind of dialogue and this kind of discernment, the Constitutions specify that superiors should be chosen who show the qualities of “an ability to animate a community so that it can share and dialogue in a climate of mutual trust and acceptance” and “a spirit of discernment and a capacity for making decisions once consultation has been carried out” (C 81). This dialogue and discernment are important, but especially so before people “are appointed to new responsibilities” (R 19) [R 26b in CCRR 2000]. On occasions like this, the superior must consult the individuals and give them the opportunity “to express their own views” (R 19) [26b].
A climate of dialogue does not absolve the superior from the responsibility of making the final decision. In the course of the dialogue, the individual religious or the community and the superior must discern the signs indicating the will of God. In the initial stage, the individual religious has the right and the duty of laying before the superiors the signs of God ‘s will as he sees them in current events. The superior is bound to take this collaboration on the part of this religious seriously. But when the time comes to make a decision, the superior must do this before God. From that moment on, the religious is bound to obey.
e. Obedience is not an abdication of one ‘s freedom, but a committing of oneself to the guidance of the Spirit – the Spirit which leads us to true freedom. The Constitutions state that our corporate acceptance of God ‘s will “is our way of making real the freedom of the Gospel” (C 25 § 1). This principle was already set forth in the Council ‘s document, Perfectae caritatis: “In this way, far from lowering the dignity of the human person, religious obedience leads it to maturity by increasing the freedom of the sons and daughters of God.” [127] The vow of obedience, far from repressing our personality, catapults it forward by bonding it with the obedience of Christ and giving it access to full development by uniting our wills with the will of God.
f. Finally, our Constitutions remind us that obedience takes on a prophetic character for our times. “By obedience we become the servants of all. Challenging the spirit of domination, we stand as a sign of the new world wherein persons recognize their close interdependence” (C 25 § 1). Our obedience already proclaims the Kingdom of God, which can be realized only through love, humility and service. Through our obedience, we become witnesses of the dawning of a new world where people no longer seek to lord it over their brothers and sisters and where power is devoted to the service of others. Obedience well lived brings to birth bonds of communion. It also becomes good news for the men and women of today and bears witness to a world which has been re-created by a God who is love.
CONCLUSION
Through his obedience, the Oblate makes a total offering of himself to God “an offering that is without reserve, to belong to Jesus Christ and, as a consequence, to being sent anywhere in the world, as needed, to cooperate in his work of salvation”. [128] Father Jetté expressed well the basic reality at stake in the realm of obedience when he said: “That the Oblates as a whole, as persons, renew themselves in an attitude of complete availability: that they be ready to sacrifice their personal tastes, their personal apostolic project […] to place themselves at the Congregation ‘s service and dedicate themselves to evangelizing the poor according to the Congregation ‘s apostolic priorities”. [129]
The sentiments that inspired the Founder on the occasion of the first revision of the Constitutions of 1850 still hold true for the Oblate of today. In his August 2, 1853 letter, he wrote: “All my hope, my most dear sons, is that this second promulgation of our laws may arouse new fervor in the heart of each one of you, that it may bring a kind of renewal of your youth […].” [130]
Frank Demers
