The General Chapter of 2005, both in its
"Introductory Reflections" and in its "Statements", when
speaking about "Prophetic Identity" and "Prophetic
Witness", focuses almost exclusively upon solidarity with the poor
and other victims of injustice. This is understandable, especially against the
background of growing legitimized injustice in modern society and our calling
as
While preparing this paper, I read the "Instrumentum Laboris" (=IL), prepared by the Preparatory Committee of the General Chapter and used by the Chapter as material for their discussions. Based on the information collected from the provinces and individual members, who responded to the preceding "Lineamenta", the Committee presented an overview, as balanced as possible, of the current state of our congregation, its strengths and weaknesses. In the reports quoted by the IL, individualism stands out as one of the central problems of our congregation. Together with "a spirit of destructive criticism within our communities," individualism is mentioned as one of the most notable limitations that have damaged our community life throughout the course of our history (IL p. 7, n. 31). The IL gives the following quotations of respondents, "We are affected by individualism. What are the causes of this situation? The lack of continuous human formation in the past…." (IL p. 12, n. 50) Another respondent states: "We need … to fight against individualism both among ourselves and in our present day society" (IL p. 13, n. 53) And the composers of the IL conclude: "One major problem in many areas is an individualism that is manifested not only in our lifestyles or attitude to ministry but also in the willingness to share our faith and ourselves in community." (IL p.14 n. 57) and further on: "The modern environment tends to promote individualism and tribalism. How do we counteract this, strengthen the bonds of solidarity and fraternal communion in the different ministerial situations in which we find ourselves?" (IL p. 19 n. 93.) So, the General Chapter invites us to counteract "individualism" as much as 'tribalism' because it is opposed to 'solidarity' and 'fraternal communion.'
Besides explaining it as a social theory, Webster's Universal College Dictionary describes the word "individualism" with two meanings: as "the principle or habit of independent thought or action," (I call this healthy individualism) and as "the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism." (I call that unhealthy or negative individualism.) It may be clear that the IL calls "individualism" unhealthy and detrimental to community life and mission.
However, what spontaneously came to my mind, while reading how 'individualism' is blamed as one of the major problems in our congregation, is that the prophets of the Old Testament were certainly among the great individualists of their religious communities. At least during his public life and in the eyes of the people guarding the holy Jewish traditions, Jesus was considered an individualist. Our own Fr. Chevalier was certainly by his own family regarded as an individualist, because he didn't want to use his position as a parish priest to benefit his family.
Remember also some outstanding figures
in your own
Psychologically speaking, unhealthy individualism is a sign of stagnation in personal development. There are people whose capacity to relate freely to other people has stagnated during a certain stage of life. They tend to cling to themselves, prefer to be alone and to be left alone or they relate only to a small group of trusted people around them. For them, individualism may function as a "defence mechanism", called "isolation", enabling them to survive in a too complicated world. It would need a psychiatrist or psychologist to accompany such a person and to offer help to overcome this distortion. Healthy individualism is a sign of a personal conviction or a decision of conscience. It is a free choice that somebody makes, while accepting the unpleasant consequences that often come along with it. This might be the case of a true prophet, either in a secular or in religious environment. It is not always easy to discern between those two forms of individualism and to decide where the first ends and the second begins, even in our own hearts.
However, there is still a third form that could be called temporary individualism. It is a sign of reaction against authority or a traditional pattern of life, felt as oppressive and restrictive. Psychologists point out that each person that doesn't stagnate and get stuck in his or her personal development, will go through a period of emphasizing individual identity, while opposing the habits of family, community or society, in order to grow into a mature and more balanced human person. This form of individualism is actually a transitory stage and usually people outgrow such an attitude, sooner or later.
What is said about individual beings could be said also about society in general
or about the membership of a congregation. Let us
for the moment limit ourselves to our congregation. There are certainly unhealthy
forms of individualism among us. But I doubt if any of our communities would be
able to heal such people, considering the fact that a religious community is
not a therapeutic community. There is certainly among us also healthy
individualism. The presence of healthy individualists could be a
blessing for a community, provided that these people would be accepted for what
they really are: major or minor prophets. In general, however, prophets are not
welcomed "in their own hometown", as Jesus already found out (Luke
Therefore, It could be helpful to spend a moment trying to understand where the seeds of a tendency towards individualism in present day society and more particularly in our congregation, are to be found. Understanding some of the roots of individualism may help us also to appreciate this phenomenon either as a transitory reaction or as a necessary condition for growth towards new models of religious life, also in our congregation.
I agree with Herman
Schalück OFM who states:
"The current desire for freedom and autonomy, even in questions
concerning ethics, morals and religious lifestyles, has often been deplored as
threatening. I would ask you to consider this desire for once as a positive
challenge to the consecrated life. We all know that strongly authoritarian and
paternalistic models characterized "community life" in the past… One
aspect of the present crisis in (Religious Life), at least in Europe and North
America, stems, in my opinion, from the fact that we have not yet succeeded in
making the themes of emancipation, of equal rights for women, of freedom and
autonomy of the individual a positive part of the theology and practice (of
following Christ) in the postmodern age." [1]
So, when dealing with the issue of 'individualism' both in modern Church life and also in our own congregation, something very fundamental is at stake. How did we get into this position of a prevailing individualism in modern society and also in our congregation? However, don't expect from me a solid piece of historical analysis. I may just offer some hints that might function as an invitation to further reflection.
Living in Issoudun, I like to visit the castles and cathedrals in the neighbourhood. Just walking around gorgeous places like Valençay, Chenonceau, Chambord or Versailles or in the splendid cathedrals of Bourges, Chartres, Paris, Reims and Vézelay, (accompanied by instructive audio-guides,) have taught me a lot about Europe, the old hierarchical order of society, the reasons for the revolutions and of the present day prevailing European mentality of individualism. Imagine for a moment how these castles were located within their surroundings as centres of culture and civilization, but also of lavish living and exuberant entertainment, in the middle of vast areas of poverty and suffering. Also, how these beautiful cathedrals rose as elevated centres of worship, built upon the hardship of serfs and slaves. These castles and cathedrals proclaim more loudly than books the message how in the past, ordinary people were totally dependent on the arbitrariness of the nobles living in the castles and of the bishops or abbots in their palaces. Daily life was shaped by the civil and ecclesial nobility who dominated the people living on their properties. They decided about war or peace and even about the kind of religion people were allowed to practice.
In those days people lived in, what is sociologically called, "a concentric or hierarchical society". The Church was organised parallel to the structure of civil society. Civil society and Church-life were concentrically organised around the centres of political and spiritual power. Before the separation of Church and state, these two powers were inextricably interwoven with one another.
Notice how these hierarchical or concentric structures of society and Church also created the shape of the dominant image of God in those days: God on top of the hierarchical ladder, sitting enthroned in his heaven, governing the human race either directly through his divine Providence or through the two central powers on earth: the Church and the state. As we pray in Psalm 33: "From heaven the Lord looks down and observes the whole human race, surveying from the royal throne all who dwell on earth." Not surprisingly, the religious life of orders and congregations has been for ages, structured along the same hierarchical lines and in the same concentric circles, at international and national levels, and also at the level of local communities: the superior in the centre, supported in his authority by constitutions and statutes that tended to regulate the life of all the members up to the smallest details, similar for everyone in the community.
The French Revolution and other revolutions in Europe and the Americas were not only attempts to construct a new social and political order, but as much, efforts to create a society built upon the dignity and rights of the human person and not any longer upon monarchical, ecclesial and even divine power. Remember that the French Revolution in 1789 started with a declaration of human rights. Because of the age-long intertwining of spiritual and political power, the Republicans didn't only want to get rid of monarchy and nobility, but also of the authority of the Church and, as in the case of the Freemasons, of a God designing and surveying the world. It took the European Republicans decades to realize that their own slogan: "Liberté, egalité, fraternité", should also expedite freedom of religion, separation of Church and State and equal rights and votes for men and women. But it took the Church until the Second Vatican Council to officially accept the principles of "liberty, equality and fraternity" as basic values of Christian living and Church community, for example in Documents such as "Dignitatis Humanae" and "Gaudium et Spes." We could even say, that in the Roman Catholic Church the process of implementation is not yet finished.
Many of our contemporaries, including men and women in religious life, feel very much attracted to the values of liberty and equality, but are still searching for ways to integrate these values into the ideals of fraternity or sorority, or with a modern word, solidarity. For them 'individualism' did not give birth to 'solidarity' yet. However, as far as our own congregation is concerned, the IL reports a growing spirit of communion and brotherhood within our communities, a deepening of emotional maturity and a strengthening of the bonds of friendship and mutual support; "Such communion does not so much depend on the members all living under the same roof but rather on their willingness to be open and to trust one another" (IL p.16 n. 66). We are clearly growing to "a new 'style' of community life. "It is a style that is also more open to those outside the community." (ibid.)
In relation to religious life in general, however, it might be good to realize that, organizationally, there is no difference yet, between the structures of orders and congregations before the Revolution (or at the time of Fr. Chevalier) and nowadays. Orders and congregations are still organized in the same concentric, hierarchical way as in the past, even if we have tried to insert elements of subsidiarity, co-responsibility and dialogue. However, mentally and spiritually are we all children of the Revolution, experiencing the aftermath of the Revolution, loving to be independent in thought and action. And this applies to us as citizens of the civil society, but also as members of the Church and of a religious congregation. Many of us are carrying around the new wine of longing for autonomy and independence in the old wineskins of hierarchical structures. In many cases, we have not been able yet to find new models or styles of religious life that give shape to this new mentality and spirituality.
Now, before trying to change the old structures and
replace them with new ones, let us first ask the question what exactly irritates
modern people concerning these old hierarchical structures.
It is not so much the structure as such, but the structure as far as it is oppressive
in relation to our freedom and autonomy. Herman Schalück notes that the concrete form of consecrated life as we
have inherited it from the 19th century is described by sociology as
"total institution": it tended to encompass all aspects of
religious and personal life. "How the life operated was defined down to
the tiniest details. Individual development was not a desirable goal. The
wishes of the individual had to be subordinated to the aims of the institution." [2]
Parallel to the organization of Church and society, also orders and
congregations of the past were structured from the 'top-down'. But more than
that, accepting the hierarchical structure was seen as a matter of obedience
and presented as the only rightful way of living a life dedicated to Christ and
the coming of God's Kingdom.
The vow of obedience
was understood and taught in the context of hierarchical structures. Our own Fr. Chevalier wrote, "Whoever
professes this vow, is obliged to obey everything that a
We should keep in mind that behind
the old understanding of obedience was that traditional image of God as enthroned upon the top of the hierarchical
ladder. Every person in legitimate power was seen as a representative of this
all-powerful God. Submitting one's will to such a person, even in the smallest
things, was considered a sublime sacrifice and an excellent way of worshipping
God himself. Probably, our older confreres have still undergone this style of
religious life and some of them may have developed a habit of reacting against
such an oppressive model. Consequently, that may be the reason that they have
chosen a more individualistic lifestyle.
At the present time, we are
searching for new models of religious life, adapted to and inculturated in, our new
experience of what it means to be a human being in relationship with God and
one another. If in the past, religious life was organized as "a total
institution", in which all power came from above, now we are
searching for a way of life that enables us to live our relationship with God
and our neighbors in "a holistic way", arising from below,
from within the core of our human personality, from within our individual
hearts. We are in search of models of lived solidarity, both with people within
the community as well as with people outside the community, while making the
most of our individual gifts and abilities.
A radical change in our image of God has greatly contributed to this holistic vision of religious life. We
feel encouraged to search for new models of religious life because for us God
is not so much the Holy One on top of the social ladder, but the
Spirit-within-each of us and the God whose existence is reflected by the
presence of each human being. We nurture an image of God who creates and loves
each human person in his or her uniqueness. We cherish our individuality with
its gifts and limitations, not because we over-indulge ourselves, but because
we realize that through our individual presence and involvement God's Spirit is
creative among us.
In order to overcome selfishness
and egoism, we feel not so
much inclined anymore to sacrifice our self-will to someone in power above us,
but to integrate the (always limited) spiritual, intellectual, affective
and physical qualities of our God-given personalities in a community or a team
as a whole. New words for obedience are dialogue, communication, teamwork, and
acceptance of one another as we are. These qualities are all rooted in a
willingness to listen and to communicate, to accept and to give. That means
that community life and involvement in mission should be developed from
below, starting from the qualities of each individual person, while trying
to integrate each personal aspiration and contribution in the common mission.
To realize such a holistic participation in community life and mission, "individualism" should not be considered as a hindrance, but as a condition, indispensable for enriching communion and teamwork. The only way to overcome unhealthy individualism is by fostering healthy individualism. Formation should start from where the 'formandi' are, psychologically and spiritually, not by forcing them to adapt to age-old preconceived patterns of religious life, but by accompanying them to find in their own hearts the longings for fraternity and solidarity, together with their longing for autonomy and independence.
Concerning provinces where "initial formation" is a memory in the distant past, supporting healthy individuality could be the best way to involve people in community life and communal mission. Certainly, we shouldn't close our eyes to the fact that "individualism" is a seed in our hearts that may develop wheat or weeds. This seed will either blossom and bear fruit that benefit community life and mission, or grow into selfishness while urging people to pursue their private interest only. But we should remember also that it is the same seed and its growth cannot be prevented, only nurtured and accompanied. The General Chapter has certainly made a strong point, emphasizing that individualism sometimes takes on unhealthy forms. However, the way to counteract this kind of unhealthy individualism might be by accepting people in their longing for autonomy, independence and freedom. In the long run they themselves may become aware of the fact that the best way to live a deep longing for autonomy is by taking responsibility for community life and participating in a common mission according to their own gifts.
In our Chevalier Family this
common mission is not found in specific kinds of work, such as living with the
poor or in foreign missions, - works that require a strong centralized
organization, - but in living spirituality. Spirituality is not a common
doctrine neither a joint effort to accomplish a work, but a way of life,
rooted in the individual way the Spirit is guiding each of us. Living a
Spirituality of the Heart means following Jesus who loved with a human heart
and showing God's love for humankind, through the implementation of the
qualities of our individual hearts. It can be done by any appropriate kind of
work, but it requires the development and contribution of our own individual
gifts for the benefit of the whole of our mission. Our witness about God's love
as revealed in Jesus' Heart can only be authentic, when we are personally and wholeheartedly
involved in this mission. Therefore, accepting our individual selves and
feeling being accepted as the individual persons we are, with the personal
qualities and limitations that characterize each of us individually, becomes
very important, not only psychologically, but also missiologically. Our
individual personalities and hearts are the most powerful means of
Many people confuse adulthood with individualism in the sense of “doing your own thing”, without much concern for others. On the other hand, we also meet people who in order to find some sense of identity, are so much embedded in their relationships with people around them that they are not free anymore. However, many psychologists, nowadays, agree that mature adult persons will show a balance between inner freedom on the one side and openness toward other people on the other side. Mature people are persons who are free enough to take their own decisions and make their own choices, while being able to cope with the challenges of life, and who on the other hand will show an openness of mind and heart, being able to relate with other persons even beyond the boundaries of their own tribe, class or religion. I think, it is a special vocation of people in religious life to bring to light these foundational attitudes of the human person. Today’s world needs such a prophetic witness.
[1] Herman Schalück, OFM, The Gospel from Age to age,
[2] The Gospel from age to age, p. 14 - 15.