Commissio Constitutionum OFMCap.

DRAFT OUTLINE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONS FOR THE LXXXIV GENERAL CHAPTER

Chapter X: Our life in obedience

Second Proposed Revision (PdR 2)

Rome — General Curia — 2012

Table of Contents

• INTRODUCTION
  • I. Enrichment of the Text
  • II. Titles of the two articles of chapter X
  • N. 158 (155)
• ARTICLE I: THE PASTORAL SERVICE OF THE MINISTERS
  • N. 159 (156)
  • N. 160 (157)
  • N. 161 (158)
  • N. 162 (159)
  • N. 163 (160)
  • N. 164 (161 + 162-163)
• ARTICLE II: THE LOVING OBEDIENCE OF THE BROTHERS
  • N. 165 (164)
  • N. 166 (165)
  • N. 167 (166)
  • N. 168 (167)

INTRODUCTION

Chapter Ten of the Constitutions was revised especially by one of the members of the Commission. The Sub-commission then examined the text on 3 July, as did the full Commission on 5-8 July (2010). The first Proposed Revision (PdR1) was sent out to the Order on 28 August 2010 (date of the General Minister’s letter). The text was once again examined in the light of the feedback received, in the XII Plenary Session of the Commission, from 4 to 14 July 2011. First of all it was noted that the Commission’s work was appreciated by the Order, so that the most considerable changes concern only 3 paragraphs of PdR1. The majority of observations, expressed forcefully by a small group of brothers, mostly concerned the Prologue of the chapter (cf. PdR1, n. 155; PdR2, n. 158), the use of terminology minister/s, guardian/s, superior/s, the mention of difficulties in the life of obedience (cf. PdR1, n. 162,5; PdR2, n. 165,5) and the exercise of authority (cf. PdR1, n. 156,3; PdR2, n. 159,3). These were all evaluated and discussed by the Commission.

The Explanatory Notes go into all these and other areas in more detail, including those which the Commission felt it inappropriate to accept. Reasons are always given in the Notes for each choice made by the Commission.

I. Enrichment of the Text

The Introduction to PdR1 at that time (21 July 2010), had explained the meaning of the interventions and choices made by the Commission in revising chapter X, especially mentioning the main changes and additions, as well as the documents of the Magisterium referred to. It seems appropriate to repeat what was said in the previous Introduction, with the necessary updates about the further revision that resulted in this PdR2.

1. The Introduction to PdR1 noted first of all that the text of chapter X of the Constitutions, as it was (and is) proposed by the Commission, was substantially the same as that which had been proposed at the time by the Commissio Capitularis Legislationis (C.C.L.)^[1] and was presented to the General Chapter of 1968. That text presented a close harmony between the insights and intentions of Saint Francis on the one hand and with the teaching of Vatican II and the difficulties concerning authority and obedience on the other.^[2] The 1968 Chapter welcomed the work of the CCL^[3] and made only a few changes to the Schema presented. The 1970 and 1974 General Chapters made no changes to the 1968 text. The 1982 General Chapter later inserted some new paragraphs and made some changes to the content, mostly regarding the style of the text.^[4]

2. The changes our Commission has made in fulfilment of the mandate of the 2006 General Chapter do not alter the text currently in force. Their simple purpose is to enrich the text in the light of the post-conciliar Magisterium, especially the recent instruction of the CIVCSVA, The Service Of Authority and Obedience. Faciem Tuam, Domine, Requiram (11 May 2008).^[5] Regarding Chapter Ten there is nothing to draw from the Documents of the Order since in recent decades our Fraternity has not made any special reflection on authority and obedience. However, in compiling this text, constant reference has been made to the Writings of Saint Francis.

3. Above all the changes concern the introduction (Const. n.155), which further underlines the Christological foundation for obedience, and highlights its ecclesiological aspect, given that obedience is fundamental to the life of the Church and for each Christian, as well as the example and teaching of Saint Francis. The text, therefore, is expanded with four new paragraphs (cf. PdR2, n. 158,1-4), while the current paragraphs (cf. Cost 155,1.3-4) are placed after the elements just listed. The anthropological aspect of obedience and the relationship between freedom and obedience are underlined in the drafting to the texts (cf. PdR2, n. 158,1.3).

4. Article I is on The pastoral service of the Ministers. With the changes and additions to the text we have tried to give greater emphasis to the profile of the ministers (what they should avoid and what they ought to be), while also pointing out some of the difficulties in the exercise of authority (cf. PdR2, n. 159). Other more salient aspects that emerge in changes to the text of Article I concern: dialogue and listening (cf. PdR2, n. 160); the ministers’ commitment to the formation of the friars and their faithfulness to their vocation (cf. PdR2, n. 161); mercy and forgiveness (cf. PdR2, n. 163) and the pastoral visitation (cf. PdR2, n. 164).

5. No modifications are proposed for this last question, but rather the transfer of some norms to the complementary Code following the suggestion of the Project 2006. Therefore, the three numbers (161, 162, 163) that the current text dedicates to the pastoral visitation are reduced to one, and the text assigned to the complementary Code has eight paragraphs, grouped together in two numbers (cf. PdR2, Complementary Code, 10/1 and 10/2).

6. Article II is on The loving obedience of the brothers. The more important additions concern: the meaning of obedience as a sharing in the work of redemption and as a path to holiness (cf. PdR2, n. 165); difficulties in obedience (cf. PdR2, n. 165); the relationship between the brothers and their ministers (cf. PdR2, n. 166), the relationship of the ministers with brothers in difficulty (cf. PdR2, n. 167).

7. In the drafting of the texts the Commission did not adopt any preference between the terms superior and minister. The Commission respected the choice made at the time of the first compilation of Chapter Ten by the CCL and in the 1968 General Chapter. Therefore the undifferentiated use of the two terms in the present current text remains unchanged, while in the new texts preference is given to the term minister and ministers. The terms minister or superior refer to all superiors, including guardians. From the context it will be clear whether the terms refer to major superiors or to those and to guardians. The noun guardian has only been used three times cf. PdR2, n. 158,7; 161,1.4; in PdR1 it appeared twice in nn. 155,7 and 158,4). As already mentioned above, the feedback received, including on chapter X, once again showed how insistently many brothers preferred the Franciscan terms minister, guardian and asked for the term superior to be dropped once and for all. . But there are not a few brothers who point out the confusion and inconvenience it would create if only the term minister were used, or if minister or guardian were used in every case. The Commission has taken account of both concerns, but believes that the question must be clarified at the General Chapter and resolved in a balanced way, avoiding rigid literalism and extremism.

8. Lastly, given the specific character and structure of Chapter Ten with its distinction between the ministers (Article I) and the other brothers (Article II), we have kept the use of the verbs in the third person plural – except in the introduction (cf. PdR2, n. 158) and in the final number (cf. PdR2, n. 168). After checking the texts we were convinced that the use of the first person plural would not have been satisfactory, especially in some numbers and paragraphs (e.g. cf. PdR2, n. 166).

II. Titles of the two articles of chapter X

1. It seems appropriate to pause a moment on the headings of the two articles of the Chapter: The pastoral service of the ministers (Article I) and The loving obedience of the brothers (Article II)^[6], in order to explain the reasons why

our Commission decided to retain these two headings, avoiding the deletion of pastoral in the titles of Article I and the replacement of charitable by mutual in the title of Article II.

Both titles were chosen at the General Chaptedeclaration of 1968 and at that time it was declared: Before going any further with a reflection on this matter, it seems opportune to refer back to when these headings were first chosen: “Articulus primus disserit de superioribus, et quidem sub titulo ‘de pastorali ministrorum servitio’, in quo ideae fundamentales de servitio et de munere pastorali, postea evolvendae, iam clare praenuntiantur. Secundus articulus tractat de oboedientia, addita iam in titulo qualificatione ‘caritativae’ oboedientiae, ut motivum specificum supernaturale et peculiaritas franciscana inde ab initio innuantur.”^[7]

2. From this declaration it follows, first of all, that the pastoral aspect endows a defining meaning to the action of the ministers. Superiors exercise their office by way of an ecclesial mandate. They share in the threefold pastoral office (docendi, sanctificandi, regendi) of the Church herself: “Superiors are to exercise their power, received from God through the ministry of the Church, in a spirit of service” (Can. 618). “Superiors fulfil their duty of service and leadership within the religious institute in conformity with its distinctive character. Their authority proceeds from the Spirit of the Lord through the sacred hierarchy, which has granted canonical erection to the institute and authentically approved its specific mission. Considering then the fact that the prophetic, priestly and royal condition is common to all the People of God (cf. LG 9, 10, 34, 35, 36), it seems useful to outline the competency of religious authority, paralleling it by analogy to the three-fold function of pastoral ministry, namely, of teaching, sanctifying and governing without, however, confusing one authority with the other or equating them” (Mutuae relationes, 13).

3. The adjective “loving” which according to the statement quoted above expressed the particular character of Franciscan obedience, deserves a more detailed consideration.

First of all it should be said that the current Constitutions sufficiently underline the aspect of mutual obedience. Now in some passages the Proposed Revision has further highlighted and sometimes reinforced this aspect. At the same time, it should be noted that an excessive or unilateral insistence on mutual obedience does not entirely conform to the teaching to Saint Francis. Based on the Writings of Saint Francis, the Constitutions speak of mutual obedience as well as loving obedience. And no contradiction is to be found between these expressions of obedience in either the Opuscula or in the Constitutions.

a) It should also be clarified that the value of mutual obedience is highlighted in the New Testament writings (cf. Gal 5,13-14; Rom 13,8-10). It is especially underlined in the experience and legislation of pre-Franciscan religious life. Saint Francis is situated against a pre-existing background of an evangelical, New Testament tradition in religious life.

The Document Faciem tuam (cf. n.20 g) has two passages from the Benedictine Rule: “The service of obedience by all is not to be rendered to the Abbot only, but the Brethren shall also mutually obey each other, knowing that by this path of obedience they shall to unto God” (chap. 71, 1-2). “Let them bear patiently with each other’s infirmities, whether of body or of mind. Let them contend with one another in the virtue of obedience. Let no one follow what he thinks profitable to himself, but rather that which is profitable to another” (chapt.72, 4-7). The same Instruction of the CIVCSVA also includes the thought of Saint Basil the Great, where he asks himself: “In what way do we have to obey each other?” He responds: “As servants to their masters, as the Lord has ordered us: ‘Let him who would be great among you become the servant of all (cf. Mk 10:44)’; Then he adds these words which are still more impressive: ‘Like the Son of Man who came not to be served but to serve’ (Mk 10:45); and as the Apostle says: ‘Through the love of the Spirit, be servants to each other’ (Gal 5:13).”^[8]

Saint Francis also refers to Gal 5,13 to advise his brothers, “Let no brother say or do anything evil to another; on the contrary, through the charity of the Spirit, let them serve and obey one another voluntarily. This is the true and holy obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ” (RnB V,13-15). This text, meaningful as it is, is not referred to in the Document Faciem tuam when it speaks about fraternal and mutual obedience (n.20, g). Nevertheless the Document is particularly aware of Francis’ idea about authority and obedience.^[9] The CIVCSCA document suggests that the aspect of mutual obedience is not the most specific aspect of the message of Saint Francis. Nor is his reference to Gal. 3,15 something novel or unique. This in no way devalues the text in the RnB. There the Poverello establishes a close bond between to serve and to obey and makes it clearly understood that true and holy obedience can only be spoken of in the case where the friars serve and obey one another out of love. For it is only in such a case that obedience conforms with the model received from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

It should also be noted that Francis, as did others, read the Galatians text according to the Vulgate version (per caritatem spiritus servite invicem), while the original text has: dià tēs agàpēs doulèuete allếlois. The New Vulgate rightly translates this as per caritatem servite invicem and the version authorised by the Italian Episcopal Conference has: mediante la carità siate a servizio gli uni degli altri. Aside from this philological detail and in the light of its Pauline context, it can be said that the meaning in the Vulgate text, and therefore in Saint Francis, the meaning of the construction charity of spirit is clear, namely, charity of the Spirit (possessive subject), gift of fruit of the Spirit. ^[10] Therefore, in the expression cited above, Saint Basil says, “Through the love of the Spirit, be servants to each other (Gal 3,15).” Charity has its origin in the Spirit. In fact, the Spirit is the agàpē of the Father and the Son, poured out in the hearts of believers. The relationship between charity and spirit in Gal 5 is so fundamental that the two terms may be swapped around. To say per caritatem is the same as saying per Spiritum. Saint Francis touched the depths of the Pauline message about Christian liberty that is the fruit of the liberation realised by Christ (For freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal. 5,1): Tệ eleutherìa ēmàs Cristòs eleuthérosen) in his Paschal Mystery of death and resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit. Freedom is a gift of the Spirit of Christ, but is a freedom realised in life in the Spirit and in charity. In fact the Apostle warns that the universal call to freedom should not become an excuse to live according to the flesh (5,13); rather it is necessary to allow oneself to be guided by the Spirit (5,18); to walk according to the Spirit (5,16); to live by the Spirit and walk according to the Spirit (5,25). [Translator: sic]. This is realised concretely in loving mutual service (5,13) because the whole law finds its fullness in just one precept: You shall love your neighbour as yourself (cf.5,14) This is life in the Spirit. Its fruits are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (5,22).

b) In his Writings Francis uses two expressions from medieval Latin:^[11] the adjective caritativus in The Admonitions n.3, and the adverb caritative in the Rb 10, 1.5. Saint Francis’ third Admonition, in particular, qualifies defines as caritativa (charitable, loving): “Should a subject see that some things might be better and more useful for his soul than what a prelate commands, let him willingly offer such things to God as a sacrifice; and, instead, let him earnestly strive to fulfil the prelate’s wishes. For this is loving obedience because it pleases God and neighbour.” (FF 149; Francis of Assisi – Early Documents vol 1: The Saint, p.130; herein cited as SF1).

Various editions of Francis’ Writings and studies about them highlight how the expression loving obedience has a biblical origin in 1 Pet 1,22 and that Saint Francis took the formula from the first Letter of Peter where the construction loving obedience constitutes a hapax in the Bible.^[12] In fact, in the Vulgate we find, “Animas vestras castificantes in oboedientia caritatis in fraternitatis amore simplici ex corde invicem diligite adtentius” (1 Pet 1,22). Instead Nova Vulgata follows the Greek text (en tệ upakoệ tēs alēthèias))more closely and translated it, “Animas vestras castificantes in oboedientia veritatis ad fraternitatis amorem non fictum, ex corde invicem diligite attentius.” In Italian, the CEI version of the Bible renders the whole sentence in this way: Dopo aver purificato le vostre anime con l’obbedienza alla verità, per amarvi sinceramente come fratelli, amatevi intensamente, di vero cuore, gli uni gli altri, rigenerati non da un seme corruttibile, ma incorruttibile, per mezzo della parola di Dio viva ed eterna» (1Pt 1,22-23). “The Petrine context is clearly about fraternal charity lived in a sincere and reciprocal loving service.”^[13] This is quite true, bearing in mind that the section 1 Pet 1,13-25 develops in three parts: “As sons” (vv. 13-16); “like the Lamb” (vv.17-21); “as brothers” (vv.22-25). However it is also true that in the third part the Petrine catechesis expresses the invitation to holiness not only through fraternal love, but also through obedience. The Apostle appeals to them to keep their “souls purified” after having been purified with “obedience to the truth.” Here the formula refers to their having become believers. The term “truth” in 1 Pet only occurs here and is used to summarise that into which Christians have been introduced by their regeneration.^[14] For Paul in Gal 5,7 sanctification flows from obedience to the truth, so too for Peter (cf. 1 Pet 1, 2.14). Clearly the goal of “obedience to the truth” and baptismal purification is that of fraternal love. Love springs from the truth and is inconceivable apart from the truth, but also obedience to evangelical truth should result in love.^[15]

c) In light of this, reference to 1 Pet to establish a biblical foundation for Francis’ formula loving obedience seems to be rather weak and it should be assumed that the Poverello would have drawn on the biblical versions in use at his time. On the other hand, it seems that the same formula may have been used by Saint Bernard,^[16] and perhaps by others,^[17] prior to Saint Francis, with meanings similar to the one Francis attributed to it himself.^[18]

Given all this, one should note that in 1 Pet obedience to charity and/or the truth is considered in terms of mutual love. In his third Admonition, however, the context is not mutual love but it is obedience to ones’ superiors that Francis wants to be loving, that is, done in love. The relationship of the friars towards their minister and vice versa, that of the minister towards their friars (cf. RnB IV, 2; Rb X, 1.5. 100.102) is not by nature official or juridical, but flows from love and naturally relates to communion. Therefore one should conclude that the mutual obedience among the brothers and the obedience of the brothers towards their ministers are not opposed to each other, nor are they alternatives to each other. One obedience cannot be preferred to the other. The two aspects are harmonious given that on the hand the text of the RnB, with its reference to Gal 5,13 and 1 Pet 1,22; and on the other hand, from the passage from Saint Francis’ third Admonition the conclusion can be drawn that the category of loving obedience has a broader meaning that mutual obedience. Loving obedience includes both fraternal obedience (mutual) and obedience to superiors. In both cases it is a question of obedience for the sake of love, of obedience in charity. Moreover, for Francis charity and obedience are sister virtues: “Lady holy charity, may the Lord protect you, with your sister, holy obedience” (Salutation of the Virtues 3; FF 256; SF1, 164,3). Therefore there can be agreement in stating that Saint Francis’ idea about obedience belongs to his perspective about communion, and that communion requires both obedience to the superiors and obedience to all the friars – but also obedience to the Church and to all persons and creatures. Moreover, in the light of the Opuscula we do not know whether the development of Saint Francis’ idea of obedience can be reliably read as starting from the horizontal dimension – obedience related to fraternity – and ending up with the vertical, i.e. with obedience owed to superiors.^[19] The hypothesis of such a evolutionary process does not seem to be well founded and may be quite unrelated or even have little in common with the character of Saint Francis for whom obedience finds its justification and foundation in charity. Instead, it is truly fundamental to grasp that the expression “loving obedience”, in addition to being wider than “mutual obedience” in terms of its theological and spiritual meaning, gives a special character to our obedience. It is loving because it is modelled on and inspired by the heroic love of Christ himself, the obedient Servant. This loving obedience is truly more characteristic for us Franciscans,^[20] called to live the Gospel as lesser brothers.

These considerations seem sufficient to justify maintaining the titles, which were chosen at the General Chapter of 1968 for the two articles of chapter X. They may also help to contextualise the contents of the entire chapter and of the additions proposed by our Commission.

Chapter X: OUR LIFE IN OBEDIENCE

N. 158 (155)

Explanatory notes

(1) The present § 1 of n. 155 is transferred and becomes paragraph 5.

(2) The proposed revision maintains the current Christological proclamation derived from Phil 2, 7 and expands it, by making explicit the aspect of Christ’s obedience to death on the cross (Phil 2, 8). One brother proposed to begin the chapter with the following statement, inspired by Proposal 1 in PCO VII, and, with the exception of some small detailed variation, is the same as n. 124,1 in Project 2006: “Reciprocal obedience is based upon the relationship of love in the Most Holy Trinity. It tends to form free communion among brothers in which there is neither dominion nor subordination of persons and leads us to listen to one another with empathy and to serve one other with love.” The justification proposed in support of the proposal was this: “The Trinitarian basis for many areas of our life is becoming more accessible to us, enabling us to construct a theology of the Franciscan and Capuchin structures of our life. It is only right that the Trinity should be placed at the beginning of many of the chapters in our Constitutions, including chapter X on obedience, in such a way that the theological scheme of the chapter flows from Christ and, as far as possible, also towards the CHURCH and ST FRANCIS. The inclusion of the Trinity in our theological foundations reflects the revival of Trinitarian studies at present under way in the Church and which is receiving a very favourable response among the new members in initial formation. …” [Prop. N.; X00005].

The Commission considered this proposal, as it had previously considered the text of Project 2006, and proposed the following considerations:

1) At the beginning of chapter 10, which deals with our life in obedience, the first theological reference – according the current text – is the kerygmatic proclamation found in the Christological hymn in 2 Phil (cf. n. 159, 1), and see also explanatory note 2 attached to n. 169 in PdR2. However, in the introduction to chapter 10 itself the Trinitarian dimension is clearly expressed by the reference to the actual economy of salvation (cf. n. 159, 1-2), from which the Trinitarian dynamism emerges (From the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, to the Father) This also occurs in other chapters of the Constitutions according to PdR.

2) Referring to the teaching in Vita Consecrata (cf. n. 21: (Reflection of Trinitarian life in the evangelical counsels), PdR2 states, at an opportune moment (cf.162, 2), that [the brothers] “by living in obedience, together with the fraternity, discover the will of God with greater security, manifest the communion of the Trinity of the three Divine Persons and strengthen fraternal union itself”;

3) The aspect of reciprocal obedience and mutual service, as well that of helping one another and listening to one another, are brought out both in chapter 10, beginning with the first number, and in other chapters of the Constitutions:

4) Although the expression free communion among brothers in which there is neither dominion nor subordination of persons was approved by PCO VII, the Commission had reservations about its formulation, as had already emerged in PCO VII, and about its inclusion in the text of the Constitutions.

5) The Commission made no reference to the free communion between brothers but preferred the Biblical expression The freedom of the sons of God (PdR, 159, 3);

6) Moreover it should be noted that from the point of view of fraternal relationships, if our vocation calls us to mutual obedience and reciprocal service, it is obvious that there can be no dominion or subordination of persons among us. Consequently the Commission preferred to express this value in a positive way and not by means of two negatives.

(3) The text brings out the redemptive aspect of Christ’s obedience: by His redeeming death he has saved us from sin. Human freedom results from an act of liberation, according to the original text of Gal 5,1: For freedom Christ has set us free – Té eleutherìa emàs Cristòs eleuthérosen in His Paschal Mystery of death – resurrection – outpouring of the Spirit.

(4) This number underlines – as the effect of Christ’s obedience – the anthropological dimension of obedience and its relationship to freedom. The text is derived from VC 91: “Obedience re-proposes the obedience of Christ to the Father and, taking this mystery as its point of departure, testifies that there is no contradiction between obedience and freedom. Indeed, the Son’s attitude discloses the mystery of human freedom as the path of obedience to the Father’s will, and the mystery of obedience as the path to the gradual attainment of true freedom. It is precisely this mystery which consecrated persons wish to acknowledge by this particular vow”.

(5) § 2 stresses the ecclesiological foundation of obedience, with the addition of in Whom (the Word made flesh) God fulfils every profound aspiration of the human person who searches for life’s meaning highlighting the existential condition of the human being in his thirst for the Absolute: “Your face, O Lord, I seek” (Ps 27:8) is the response of the person who has understood the uniqueness and the infinite greatness of the mystery of God and the sovereignty of his holy will but it is also the response, even if it is only implicit and confused, of every human creature in search of truth and happiness. Quaerere Deum [the search for God] has always been the quest of every being thirsting for the Absolute and the Eternal. Many today tend to consider any kind of dependence as humiliating, but the status of creature in itself implies dependence on Another and, therefore, the status of a relational being, dependent on others.

The believer seeks the living and true God, the Beginning and the End of all things, the God not made in his or her image and likeness but the God who made us in his image and likeness, the God who makes known his will, who indicated the ways to reach him: “You will show me the path of life, fullness of joys in your presence, delights at your right hand forever” (Ps 16:11)”. (Faciem tuam 4).

(6) Obedience is considered as a condition for the life of the Church, which is grounded in obedience precisely because its very being depends on divine revelation, and its fundamental task is to respond to the plan of salvation. The proposed text is inspired by Dei Verbum 2 and 5. The Trinitarian dynamic of the proposed text should be noted, as well as the relationship between Word of God – Obedience of faith (cf. Rom 1, 5; 16, 26; cf. also 2Cor 10, 5), which is particularly underlined also in Faciem tuam (nn. 5-7).

(7) “In him everything is a listening to and acceptance of the Father (cf. Jn 8:28-29); all of his earthly life is an expression and continuation of what the Word does from eternity: letting himself be loved by the Father, accepting his love in an unconditional way, to the point of deciding to do nothing by himself (cf. Jn 8:28) but to do always what is pleasing to the Father. The will of the Father is the food which sustains Jesus in his work (cf. Jn 4:34) and which merits for Him and for us the superabundance of the resurrection, the luminous joy of entering into the very heart of God, into the blessed company of his children (cf. Jn 1:12). It is by this obedience of Jesus that “many will be made righteous” (Rm 5:19).

He also lived obedience when it presented a difficult chalice to drink (cf. Mt 26:39, 42; Lk 22:42), and he made himself “obedient to the point of death, death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). This is the dramatic aspect of the obedience of the Son, wrapped in a mystery which we can never totally penetrate, but which for us is very relevant, because it uncovers for us even more the filial nature of Christian obedience: only the child who senses that he or she is loved by the Father and loves him with his whole self, can arrive at this type of radical obedience. (The service of authority and obedience, n.8).

(8) The text refers once more to the document of CICLSAL, again stressing the anthropological value of obedience, which “is not a humiliation, but the truth on which humanity in its fullness is built up and grows to perfection” (Faciem tuam, n. 8).

(9) The second statement in § 3, which refers to a similar formula in Const 45, 3 (cf. Proposed revision n. 47, 3), brings out the paschal dimension of a life of obedience. This involves a journey of conversion, enabling a person to go out of self, to open up to the divine life and accept the Father’s will, which is the foundation of human dignity. Three brothers proposed to delete the entire paragraph because it “speaks about Christian obedience in general and not specifically of religious obedience” and because “the tone is defensive (does not mortify but establishes and develops his dignity) and places obedience in a negative light. [Prot. N.; X-00021].

The Commission is convinced that the text should be retained. It must be considered in the context of n. 159, which constitutes the Prologue or Preface to chapter 10 and, as such, is of fundamental value. Obedience is considered in its Trinitarian, Christological and ecclesiological foundations, but also as a dimension of the human and Christian life. As a logical development, the obedience which is proper to religious life is superimposed on this. Moreover, the whole of n. 159 greatly emphasises the anthropological aspect of obedience (a highly positive aspect!) and the expression does not mortify but establishes and develops his dignity (which has been taken literally from a document of the CICLSAL, Faciem tuam, Domine, requirem), far from casting obedience in a negative light, contributes to defining it precisely according to its fundamental human and Christian value.

(10) In compiling this text the point of departure was a proposal found in Project 2006: “Saint Francis conceived his life as obedience to Christ speaking in the Gospel which is lived in the Church by lesser brothers. He understood that the brothers’ relationship among themselves was one of mutual obedience (n. 118,3). The first part of this formulation is justified by an exegesis of the Prologue and of chapter I of Rnb. From these we can deduce that the life of the lesser brothers is obedience to Jesus Christ speaking in the Gospel which is lived in the Church^[21]. But Saint Francis considers obedience as an expression of communion, first of all with God, and therefore he refers it to the Spirit (obedience to the Spirit), the Word (obedience to the Word), and to the Eucharist (obedience to the Eucharist)^[22]. In view of this, the Commission feels justified in deriving from the teaching of Saint Francis the truth that our obedience has its primary reference in Christ present in the Church in Word and Sacrament. The proposed text agrees with the Instruction Faciem tuam, which says, “However, even before being the model for all obedience, Christ is the One to whom all true obedience is directed. In fact, it is putting his words into practice that renders one a disciple (cf. Mt 7:24) and it is the observance of his commandments which concretizes love for Him and draws the love of the Father (cf. Jn 14:21). He is at the centre of the religious community as the One who serves (cf. Lk 22:27) but also as the One to whom one professes one’s own faith (“You have faith in God; have faith also in me” [Jn 14:1]) and to whom one gives his or her own obedience, because discipleship, if it is to be well-grounded and persevering, can only consist in this. “In fact, it is the Risen Lord himself, newly present among the brothers and sisters gathered in his name, who points out the path to take” (n. 8).

A group of seven brothers proposed that it read “Jesus Christ present in different ways, in the Gospel, in the Sacraments”, because “the manner in which Christ is present in the Gospel, which is the account of His life, differs from the ways that He is present in the Sacraments which are visible and efficacious signs of His presence” [Prot. N.; X-00011]. The Commission agrees that Christ is present in different modes but does not think it is necessary to spell this out in this passage of the Constitutions. The same detailed point was not even found in such a fundamental text of Vatican II as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (cf. note 7). A further eight brothers proposed to expand the text in the following manner: “Jesus Christ present in the Gospel and in the Sacraments, as also in all people, especially in those who are in want and need”, “in order to have a complete idea of the Gospel experience of Saint Francis, who recognised the presence of Christ in the leper and also in those who were suffering” [Prot. N.; X-00018]. The Commission did not think that it was appropriate to lengthen the text, which in any case, in the light of the writings of St Francis, refers to the sacramental presence of Christ. The aspect stressed by those who made the proposal – attention to persons, especially to the poor – is abundantly present in the Constitutions.

(11) The text recalls the spiritual experience of Saint Francis, his unconditional following of Christ and his total conformity to Him. It is inspired by the Letter to the Entire Order: “Keep nothing of yourselves for yourselves, so that He can receive you totally, who gives Himself totally to you”. This also introduces the following sentence about the relationship between obedience and poverty.

(12) The concept of obedience as the perfection of poverty was one of Saint Francis’ insights. He presents it clearly in Admonition III: “The Lord says in the Gospel: ‘anyone who does not renounce all that he possesses cannot be a disciple’ and ‘anyone who wants to save his life, shall lose it.’ The person who offers himself totally to obedience in the hands of his prelate leaves all that he possesses and loses his body”. Further on, in the same Admonition, Francis uses similar words: “And should a subject see that some things might be better and more useful for his soul than what a prelate commands, let him willingly offer such things to God as a sacrifice, and instead let him earnestly strive to fulfil the prelate’s wishes”.

The concept of expropriation, linked to submission in obedience, recurs in the Salutation of the Virtues: “Holy obedience confounds every corporal and carnal wish, binds its mortified body to obedience of the Spirit and obedience to one’s brother, so that it is subject and submissive to everyone in the whole world, not only to people but to every beast and wild animal as well, that they may do whatever they want with it insofar as it has been given to them from above by the Lord”. “Obedience is one part of our Franciscan poverty, of our life “without anything of our own”, as Francis puts it. Obedience as renunciation of one’s own will, of every whim of one’s own volition, is certainly the most important part of being poor Franciscans. It generally becomes more burdensome and more of a sacrifice than the renunciation of things or external goods, because it is about divesting oneself of all interior possessions and inward acts of the will”^[23].

(13) The II Admonition shows clearly that obedience is the basis of our relationship with God (2^nd Admonition: The evil of one’s own will). But the same writings of Saint Francis also contain the other aspects of obedience: as an expression of communion with the Church, the brothers and with every creature^[24], and as the means by which to live that communion. Three brothers proposed to delete the second phrase in the text (He gave himself to Christ…) considering it overloaded [Prot. N.; X-00022]. The Commission points out that, while there are many elements in the text, they are not superfluous on that account. From the explanatory notes, and both in PdR1 and PdR2 (see above) it is clear that the text follows the insights of Saint Francis and depends on the Writings. In particular, it should be emphasised once again that concept of obedience as the perfection of poverty is a characteristic insight of Saint Francis.

(14) This text is § 1 in the current Constitutions. The Commission did wonder about the sequence of sentences in this number, and thought it preferable to place first the exhortation let us serve one another with a spirit of charity. The new order seems more logical: 1) first comes the service of obedience within the fraternity (let us serve one another with a spirit of charity); then, minority 2) both within the Church (without regard to distinction of office, let us strive for the last place in the community of Christ’s disciples); 3) and in the world and society (and remaining subject to every human creature for God’s sake).

(15) Project 2006 had proposed to say let us obey one another in a spirit of charity instead let us serve one another in a spirit of charity. On this point it is good to remember that the text initially proposed by the C.C.L. said caritate spiritus invicem obedientes, [obeying one another in charity of spirit] but strangely, instead of referring to Rnb V,14, the C.C.L. only referred to Eph 5,21: Subiecti invicem in timore Christi^[25].[“Give way to one another in obedience to Christ”] At the Chapter of 1968 it was proposed to change obedientes to servientes and this proposal was accepted to remove any ambiguity and because obedience had already been clearly mentioned. The text was never subsequently changed, but the motivation adduced in the 1968 Chapter should perhaps be clarified. Our Commission chose to follow closely the text of Rnb (V, 13-15), where Francis says: “Let no brother do or say anything evil to another; on the contrary. Through the charity of the Spirit let them serve and obey one another voluntarily. This is the true and holy obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ. In spite of what was said above, following the evaluations of the Order, the Commission noted that n. 167, 1 of the current text (= PdR2 n. 169, 1) already says: serve and obey one another willingly through charity of spirit, Thus in this number (159, 5) the formulation of PdR1 has been replaced by let us serve one another in a spirit of charity, deleting let us obey one another.

(16) We did not think it appropriate to change community to fraternity (cf. Project 2006, 118, 6).The change is unnecessary and does not enhance the meaning of the text. The noun community is clearly understood here as communion and in drafting the text the intention was to refer explicitly to the summaries given in Ac 2, 42; 4,32, to PC 15 and LG 9.^[26] Three brothers proposed deleting of the disciples of the Lord [Prot. N.; X-00023]. The commission could see no reason to do this and, out of respect for the present text, intends to maintain a significant detail which gives the phrase its full meaning. Moreover, it is evident (as it was to the Legislators in the Chapter of 1968), that in this passage community refers to the Church. It is also true that to describe the Church as the community of the Lord’s disciples gives a further connotation to the nature of the Church. The same connotation enriches the Constitutions and reminds us that we are called to discipleship in a community of disciples, of which we are a part.

(17) Instead of maintaining the alternative ministers or superiors, in this § we preferred to mention the guardians explicitly. But three brothers proposed [Prot. N.: X-00024] to delete the addition the guardians, because “guardians are ministers too. It is clear from the context that much refers to the ministry of guardians. “Guardians” is used also in 158, 4. It could be deleted there as well”. The Commission points out that the problem is not confined to these numbers, but the whole text of the Constitutions in general, and it must be tackled by the General Chapter.

ARTICLE I: THE PASTORAL SERVICE OF THE MINISTERS ⁽¹⁾

Explanatory note

(1) With reference to the title of article one, but also to other places in the Constitutions, one brother proposed [Prot. N.; X-00007] that Superiors should always be used throughout the revised text of the Constitutions instead of Ministers. In the revised Constitutions Minister always stands for MINISTER and indicates the office of those who in the Code of Canon Law are called Major Superiors. Now Article one is clearly about all those who exercise the ministry of guidance, therefore it refers to all Superiors, especially Guardians, who have the most direct contact with their brothers, including Vicars and Custodes, etc. In fact Article one always speaks about Ministers, except in n. 161, which deals with the Pastoral Visitation which is prescribed for Major Superiors. There are two possible ways to rectify the above-mentioned defect. The first possibility is to say Ministers and Guardians every time, as often occurs in the revised Constitutions. However, this has the disadvantage of sounding formal in style and is also not correct because there are other Superiors in addition to Ministers and Guardians. The other possibility is to continue to use the term Superior, which is a juridical term in general use and with a clear meaning. The office of Superior is a service, which presupposes some faculties, but not dominion. Because of this, the “superior” can, and in fact must, “stand above” the other brothers. We should not be afraid to call this service by its proper name.

The Commission reflected at length on this question: on the one hand it tried to accept the insistent requests from many of the rank and file of the Order to abandon the term superior altogether and adopt the Franciscan terms minister(s) and guardian(s). On the other hand, the Commission agrees that the use of minister alone, or saying ministers and guardians every time, would cause confusion and would be inappropriate. The question needs to be clarified at the General Chapter and resolved in a balanced way, avoiding literal formality as well as the opposite extreme.

N. 159 (156)

Explanatory notes

(1) The current text (§ 1) begins with an explanation of the Christological foundation and by highlighting Christ’s example. Project 2006 (n. 119,1 refers instead directly to Saint Francis, and states that he reminds us of Christ’s attitude and of His commandment … It seems preferable to keep the current text and add a second § referring to what Saint Francis says in Rnb: “Likewise, let all the brothers not have power or control in this instance, especially among themselves. For, as the Lord says in the gospel:” the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their great ones make their authority felt. It shall not be so among the brothers. Whoever wishes to be the greater among them must be their minister and servant (V,9-11).

(2) Nos. 156,2 and 157,1 of the current text have been reworked in order to highlight, in two separate paragraphs, first of all the aspect of service and secondly that of example.

(3) The adverb ‘humbly’ is intended to make explicit a basic characteristic of the service which the ministers are to give to the brothers.

(4) This expression comes from Project 2006 (n. 125, 1).

(5) The second sentence of the proposed text goes back to the Letter of Saint Francis to a minister. The intention is to express in the Constitutions one of the real difficulties encountered by those called to exercise the ministry of authority. This aspect is underlined in the Document Faciem tuam: “But persons in authority can also become discouraged and disillusioned. In the face of the resistance of some members of the community and of certain questions that seem insoluble, he or she can be tempted to cave in and to consider every effort for improving the situation useless. What we see here, then, is the danger of becoming managers of the routine, resigned to mediocrity, restrained from intervening, no longer having the courage to point out the purposes of authentic consecrated life and running the risk of losing the love of one’s first fervor and the desire to witness to it.

When the exercise of authority weighs heavily and is difficult, it is good to recall that the Lord Jesus considers such a task an act of love towards him: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” (Jn 21:16). And listening again to the words of Paul becomes beneficial: “Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer, and contribute to the needs of the saints” (Rm 12:12-13).

The silent interior struggle that accompanies fidelity to one’s own task, marked at times by solitude or misunderstanding of those to whom one gives oneself, becomes the way of personal sanctification and a means of salvation because of what he or she suffers” (n. 28).

Three brothers suggested [Prot. N.; X-00025] deleting the last proposal or at least confining it to the Complementary Code. Having introduced it into PdR1, the Commission intends to retain it, out of fidelity to criterium veritatis (the criterion of truth) which inspired the creation of this paragraph: the difficulties encountered in living obedience and in exercising authority are real and they cannot and should not be concealed or obfuscated. One of the phrases in this passage is taken from the Writings of St Francis (cf. above). The text alludes to the difficulties of Superiors in the exercise of their office. In any case, this is not a text for the Complementary Code (Statutes or Ordinances), which is different in nature and purpose.

(6) The current text of the Constitutions refers to 1Pt 5, both in § 2 (we should not exercise authority as masters = 1Pt 5,3a: do not lord it over the persons entrusted to your charge) and in n. 157, 1 (becoming an example to them from the heart = 1Pt 5,3b: be an example to the flock). It seemed more appropriate to put the references to 1Pt in the same sentence, making the portrait of a minister or superior clearer, and highlighting what they ought to avoid and what they should be. First of all, they should not exercise authority as masters (what they ought to avoid). The expression is more faithful to 1Pt, which says: do not lord it over them, or literally do not act as masters. Therefore, ministers are not to dominate or subdue anyone: neither the presbyters, who are referred to in 1Pt, nor the superiors referred to in the Constitutions, have any right of ownership over others. In the Church and in the Order authority is not exercised like that of a boss, or like the great ones of this world “who make their authority felt” (cf. Mk 10, 42). Jesus states categorically: “It must not be like that among you; anyone who wishes to be great among you must become your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be the servant of all” (Mk 10, 43). Francis kept this commandment of the Lord clearly in mind and passed it on to his brothers in words very similar to those of the Gospel itself. For this reason we propose to insert § 2 to complement § 1, which refers to Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Mark, where He points to His own example and to the new ideal that should animate the disciples: “The Son of God did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10, 45).

(7) With a generous spirit translates the adverb prothùmōs in 1Pt (5,2), which refers to the heart, to magnanimity, generosity and enthusiasm, all of which are qualities required in anyone who is invested with authority or who holds an office.^[27] It indicates the action of one who is moved by love.

(8) We re-present the final part of n. 157, 1 with one change: according to the current text, the ministers are to be models for their fraternities; we propose to say: models for their brothers. This change is more in line with the intention of St. Francis, who in his writings speaks more often of the brothers than of the fraternity. Furthermore, it should be noted that the adverb spontaneously (ex animo in the Latin text) follows the Vulgate literally (forma facti gregis ex animo), but this does not correspond to the Greek original: tùpoi ghinòmenoi tou poimnìou. The New Vulgate therefore deletes ex animo and simply says: formae facti gregis. We cannot deduce from this that the phrase ex animo should be deleted from the Constitutions. Indeed, even 1Pt in v. 2 expresses the idea of spontaneity or rather, of willingness: Feed the flock of God among you, caring for it not by coercion (anagkastōs) but of your own accord (ekousìōs), not for the sake of vulgar profit, but willingly (prothùmos). Therefore, in this proposed text of the Constitutions, the two senses of “freely” and “willingly” are combined, to suggest a positive attitude of encouragement to ministers: at times of difficulty the minister ought not to experience his office as a heavy burden^[28]. As for the term models (which the ministers ought to be), its full meaning is seen in the light of 1Pt, which in the original Greek uses the word tùpoi (tùpoi ghinòmenoi tou poimnìou). This term suggests a concrete model which has the capacity to form or mould someone or something.^[29] (cf. the English words prototype and archetype, derived from it). So the term refers to the “being” of the ministers, much more than to their actions; their authority comes from the consistency of their lives, from the fact that their deeds match their words. “This calls for a great consistency on the part of those who guide institutes, provinces (or other sections of the institute) and communities. Persons called to exercise authority must know that they will be able to do so only if they first undertake the pilgrimage that leads to seeking the will of God with intensity and righteousness. The advice that St. Ignatius of Antioch gave to one of his fellow bishops is valuable for them: “Nothing is done without your agreement, but you do not do anything without God’s agreement”.²⁵ Persons in authority must act in such a way that the brothers or the sisters can perceive that when they give a command, they are doing so only to obey God.” (Faciem tuam n. 12). In 1Pt the absence of a specific indication of “what” they are to model could lead one to think that presbyters should be models in everything. But the previous warning against lording it over people suggests that the example in question has to do first of all with service and humility. In short, presbyters are expected to be “concrete models” of Christian discipleship. It is a matter of a duty that presbyters (or in our case, ministers) have, corresponding to the rights of the flock (in our case, of the brothers); rights that express the dignity and vocation of the brothers^[30].

(9) We re-propose the expression present in Const 156, 2, derived from the Testament of Saint Francis.

N. 160 (157)

Explanatory notes

(1) Given the redrafting of the previous number, the text is no longer a deduction from it. Hence the deletion of the conjunction therefore, and the subject is made explicit: the ministers.

(2) Project 2006 merged §§ 2 and 3 of the current text: “Therefore they should diligently fulfil the office entrusted to them and show concern for the brothers and take care of all things, always seeking the will of God together with them through prudent discernment” (n. 120,2). The Commission has accepted this approach. Therefore the adverb assiduously has been inserted in § 3.

(3) The addition is made in accordance with the wishes of a majority of the Commission.

(4) The current text has been amplified to bring out the fact that listening is a service: “The exercise of authority implies that persons in authority should gladly listen to those who have been entrusted to them.⁵² St. Benedict insists: “The abbot calls the whole community together”; “all of us have been called to give advice…because often it is to the youngest that the Lord reveals the best solution”.⁵³

Listening is one of the principal ministries of superiors for which they must always be available, above all for those who feel isolated and in need of attention. In fact, listening means accepting the other unconditionally, giving him or her space in one’s own heart. For this reason listening conveys affection and understanding, declares that the other is appreciated, and that his or her presence and opinion are taken into consideration.

Whoever presides must remember that the one who does not listen to his brother or sister does not know how to listen to God either, that an attentive listening allows one to better co-ordinate the energy and gifts that the Spirit gives to the community and also, when making decisions, to keep in mind the limits and the difficulties of some members. Time spent in listening is never time wasted, and listening can often prevent crises and difficult times both on the individual and community levels.” (Faciem tuam n. 20 a).

(5) The expression found in the current text accept their advice has been reformulated as open-mindedly consider their advice, both because the ministers are required to be ready (with an open mind) to listen and to discuss, and also because, realistically, it is impossible to accept the advice of everybody. But it is necessary that everyone’s advice be taken into consideration, and be the object of discernment by the ministers. Three brothers proposed deletion of the phrase: let them listen attentively and take their advice into consideration with an open mind…, thinking that such attention on the part of the Ministers to their own brothers was excessive and might become a pretext for abuses and individualism [Prot. N.; X-00026]. Realising that the text speaks about the value of dialogue and mutual obedience, the Commission wishes to preserve it not seeing any pretext for abuses in it, all the more so since the following paragraph makes clear the task of those in authority.

(6) This statement has been removed from the previous § not only because the text has been expanded but also to strengthen what is said in § 3 itself.

(7) Text expanded in the light of the example and experience of Saint Francis: “What the Lord asked of him at the beginning, during and at the end of his journey of conversion and consecration was not always one and the same thing, neither did the Lord always reveal to him all at once the profound meaning of what He was asking.. He had to reflect, ponder, pray and ask for prayers, endure inner suffering, fraternally beg the prayerful help of Sister Clare and Brother Sylvester; he had to communicate with his sons, hold chapters and repeatedly appeal to the Word of God and the authority of the Church. It was an exhausting journey involving a wise reading of events”^[31]. All of which tells us that we must avoid the risk of holding on to a static concept of God’s will, as if it were a thing, when in fact it needs to be discovered, through a dynamic process of prayer, searching, sacrifice and real involvement of all those concerned. In such a process the final decision of the superior can never be a matter of “having the last word first.” This is why the Church recommends: “Whoever is in charge has the responsibility for the final decision,⁵⁴ but must arrive at it not by him or herself but rather by valuing the greatest possible free contribution of all the brothers or sisters. The community is what its members make it. Therefore, stimulating and motivating a contribution from every person, so that each one feels the duty to contribute his or her own charity, competence and creativity, will be fundamental. In fact, all the human resources are strengthened and brought together in the community project, motivating and respecting them.” (Faciem tuam n.20 c).

(8) The text is transferred to the following number, § 3, and expanded with new elements.

(9) The current text is expanded to bring out a number of aspects that are important for the growth of fraternity life (information, participation, sharing, co-responsibility), on which the Documents of the Church and the Order insist. “An authority conducive to unity is one concerned to create a climate favourable to sharing and co-responsibility; to encourage all to contribute to the affairs of all; to encourage members to assume and to respect responsibility; to promote, by their respect for the human person, voluntary obedience; to listen willingly to the members, promoting their harmonious collaboration for the good of the institute and the Church; to engage in dialogue and offer timely opportunities for encounter; to give courage and hope in times of difficulty; to look ahead and point to new horizons for mission.”^[32]. “Persons in authority will have to be concerned with creating an environment of trust, promoting the recognition of the abilities and the sensitivities of individuals. Moreover, with words and deeds they will nourish the conviction that the community requires participation and therefore information.

In addition to listening, persons in authority will value sincere and free dialogue — sharing feelings, perspectives and plans: in this atmosphere each one will be able to have his or her true identity recognized and to improve his or her own relational abilities. Persons in authority will not be afraid to recognize and accept those problems that can easily arise from searching, deciding, working and together undertaking the best ways of realizing a fruitful collaboration. On the contrary, they will look for the causes of any possible uneasiness and misunderstandings, knowing how to propose solutions, shared as much as possible. Moreover, they will commit themselves to finding ways of overcoming any form of childishness, and discourage whatever attempts are made to avoid responsibility or to evade major commitments, to close oneself in one’s own world and in one’s own interests or to work in an isolated manner”. (Faciem tuam n. 20 b).

(10) The words in the house are deleted because they do not seem to be required by the context. What is said in this § refers not only to a local fraternity, but is much wider, including circumscriptions and the Order as a whole. The Proposal by three brothers [Prot. N.; X-00027] to delete the adjectives adequate, active and responsible because they were perceived to be excessive and for reasons of the clarity, brevity and strength of the argument, was not accepted. The Commission observed: the adjectives used in this text – as in so many others in the current Constitutions (texts of 1968 and 1982) have the purpose of clarifying and describing, they serve to avoid lack of focus and provide the text with clarity and keep it on the subject

(11) A new § is added to underline some of the richest aspects of inter-fraternal relationships. At the same time, the aim is to show that information, participation, sharing, and co-responsibility cannot be understood merely as factors of correct administration, but must be the features of the profound communion that exists among the brothers. The proposed text is derived from Faciem tuam (n. 20 c.) and it was accepted by the Order. However, the Commission did not accept the proposal of three brothers {Prot. N.; X-00028] to delete the last part of the text: listening to the word of God and the life of faith. As has already been noted, the text speaks about the pivotal aspects of the relationship among the brothers: the fraternal life, if it is real, should trend towards the highest degree of that which makes it what it is, namely, the reciprocal communication of faith, which derives from listening (not only as an individually, but also as a community) to the word of God.

N. 161 (158)

Explanatory notes

(1) In this number the Constitutions speak of the duty of the ministers to care for the formation of the brothers. It seemed advisable to add a new § to make it clear that this pastoral duty of formation (initial and ongoing) concerns, in the first place, the spiritual life of the brothers. Consequently the Commission could not accept the proposal to delete it, which was put forward by three brothers [Prot. N.; X-00029] who stated that: “this and part of the following numbers speaks rather about prayer and the spiritual life and are not n the right place here”. – Unlike the text in PdR1, this one now speaks of ministers and guardians. However, on this point, the problem indicated at the beginning of this chapter still remains.

(2) The expression is similar to that of can. 619: “Superiors are to devote themselves diligently to their office and together with the members entrusted to them are to strive to build a community of brothers or sisters in Christ, in which God is sought and loved before all things”. The formulation of this text for the Constitutions was also inspired by the collect for the XX Sunday in Ordinary Time: ut te in omnibus et super omnia diligentes. (so that, loving you in all things and above all things …) Furthermore, it should be pointed out that quaerere Deum is the leitmotiv of the latest Instruction of CICLSAL on The service of authority and obedience: “It is your face, O Lord, that I seek” (Ps 27:8) is the response of the person who has understood the uniqueness and the infinite greatness of the mystery of God and the sovereignty of his holy will but is also the response, even if it is only implicit and confused, of every human creature in search of truth and happiness. Quaerere Deum has always been the quest of every being thirsting for the Absolute and the Eternal. Many today tend to consider any kind of dependence humiliating, but the status of creature in itself implies dependence on Another and, therefore, being in relation, dependent on others.

The believer seeks the living and true God, the Beginning and the End of all things, the God not made in his or her image and likeness but the God who made us in his image and likeness, who makes known his will, and who has indicated the ways to reach him: “You will show me the path of life, fullness of joys in your presence, delights at your right hand forever” (Ps 16:11).

To seek the will of God means to seek a friendly and benevolent will, which desires our fulfilment, desires, above all, a free and loving response to its love, in order to make us instruments of divine love. It is along this via amoris that the flower of listening and obedience blooms”. (Faciem tuam n. 4).

(3) The text once more puts forward the idea of the exemplarity (models – tùpoi) of the ministers in relation to the other brothers, because in the consecrated life authority is first of all a spiritual authority.^[33] It makes explicit the fact that consecrated life is a journey towards sanctity.

(4) One of the primary duties of the ministers is spelled out here, because the first aim of formation should be to ensure that the primacy of God and His supreme demands find expression in everyday life.

(5) The opening of the text has been reformulated in the light of the preceding number and in order to connect the two.

(6) § 5 of n. 157 has been inserted into this number, and the text expanded and reformulated in the light of some ideas of Faciem tuam (cf. n.13 e. f). In fact, it is the task of formation, and therefore a primary duty of the ministers, to impart knowledge of our charism and to promote among the brothers a sense of communion with the Church (sentire cum Ecclesia) and the ecclesial community. Consequently even in this respect the Commission did not accept the proposal of three brothers [Prot. N.; X-00031] to return to the present text and transfer the details to the Complementary Code. Knowledge of our charism, observance of the Rule and Constitutions, a sense of the faith and ecclesial communion are anything but details and are not matters for the Complementary Code.

(7) To make the text more concrete the Commission intends to replace to observe our life faithfully by to observe the Rule and these Constitutions faithfully.

(8) Project 2006 proposes to transfer this text to the General Statutes. In order to do this, and to place it in its proper context, it is necessary to adapt or reformulate the actual text, the content of which is extremely important. The Commission proposes some changes: in our view, some ongoing formation initiatives can be undertaken also as collaborative ventures between jurisdictions. At the same time there is also a reference to the study of the Church’s documents and, in a special way, spiritual conversation and homilies in liturgical celebrations. The text as it was proposed in PdR1 was not opposed by the Order. Only the three brothers mentioned in the preceding note proposed [Prot.. N.; X-00032] returning to the old text and transferring the details to the Complementary Code. The Commission therefore retained the text as previously proposed.

N. 162 (159)

Explanatory notes

(1) One evaluation observed [Prot.. N.; X-00013] that according to eight brothers “it would be better to change the adverb spontaneously. which is open to erroneous interpretations”. Moreover, “this paragraph could be deleted or limited to just one sentence “Let them guide the brothers entrusted to them as sons of God with respect for their human personality”, since the concept is already present in n. 159, 1”. The same brothers made a similar comment with reference to the preceding paragraph [cf. Prot. N.; X-00012]. The Commission observes that the question regards the current text and has not been changed, either in point 1 or 2 of the paragraph, nor does it appear to be a case of repetition, but rather of nuances which contribute to the enrichment of the message of the Constitutions concerning the pastoral duty of the ministers.

(2) Two brothers proposed saying: “two or more witnesses” [Prot. N.; X-00008]. The present text is strong on what is required by Canon Law (can 55) and the Commission feels the same.

N. 163 (160)

Explanatory notes

(1) The new paragraph highlights the aspect of forgiveness and mercy, so forcefully recommended by Saint Francis in the Letter to a Minister (vv. 9-17). Moreover “Persons in authority are called to develop a pedagogy of forgiveness and mercy, that is, to be instruments of the love of God that welcomes, corrects and always gives another chance to the brother or sister who makes a mistake and falls into sin. Above all they will need to remember that without hope of forgiveness a person finds it hard to get back on the path and tends inevitably to add wrong to wrong and failings to failings. The perspective of mercy, instead, affirms that God is able to draw out, even from sinful situations, a way that leads towards the good.⁷¹ May persons in authority spare no efforts so that the whole community may learn this merciful style.” (Faciem tuam n. 25 d).

(2) The comments received about this number only concern a change in terminology: changing “superiors” to “ministers” [Prot. N.; X-00014]. This question needs to be tackled and resolved at the general level for all the Constitutions.

N. 164 (161 + 162-163) ⁽¹⁾

Explanatory notes

(1) Instructions for those conducting a pastoral visitation (cf. Const n. 161, 2-5) and concerning the reports on those visitations (cf. Const n. 163) are transferred to the complementary Code. Project 2006 (cf. n. 123) had also suggested this.

(2) The transfer mentioned just now in note (1) suggests the introduction of a new text as § 2, exhorting the ministers to apply themselves to the pastoral visitation with particular dedication, personally or through others, according to the prescriptions of the Church and of our own legislation. The introduction of this new § means that in § 1 it is sufficient to say the pastoral visitation, deleting the words of the major superiors. This is because the task of conducting the visitation may be delegated to other brothers who are not major superiors. This is true in the case of the general definitors (who are not major superiors or ministers), who may conduct a visitation by mandate of the General Minister, and he in turn may also delegate other brothers to do so. (cf. Const n. 161,2). However, the points made in subsequent notes should be kept in mind. One brother proposed [Prot. N.; X-00001] that it should say our particular legislation rather than our own legislation claiming that this Italian expression did not seem to be correct.. In fact both expressions are used in ecclesiastical language. In this specific case it is better to say own legislation to avoid the repetition of the adjective particular, something which the person making the proposal had in mind.

(3) In line with the decision taken when revising chapter VIII, superior regular is replaced by custos, definitors by counsellors and Vice-Province has been deleted in the entire number.

(4) To explain the proposed change it is useful to look back at the history of this text. The draft prepared at the time by the C.C.L. said: “Superiores maiores in visitatione …”^[34]; and this wording was kept throughout the passage of this text in the 1968 Chapter^[35]. However, in the final text approved by the Chapter the subject Superiores maiores was deleted, leaving the opening words of the § as: In visitatione^[36]. These opening words were kept by successive Chapters, but after the Chapter of 1982 the editorial commission changed these to Visitatores^[37]. Out of this process, it seems, emerged the figure of the “Visitator”, which is somewhat alien to the tradition of our Order, in which the pastoral visitation is reserved to the major superiors and only exceptionally delegated to others. However there are delegated visitators in our Order too, and even the current Constitutions mention them in n. 163,1. For this reason, and bearing in mind the history of the text, the opening words of the current text have been modified.

(5) The text is slightly modified and expanded in line with the suggestion of Project 2006 (cf. n. 123,3).

(6) Once again we accept the suggestion of Project 2006 (cf. n. 123,3). Cf. also CIC: “Members are to act with trust toward a visitator, to whose legitimate questioning they are bound to respond according to the truth in charity. Moreover, it is not permitted for anyone in any way to divert members from this obligation or otherwise to impede the purpose of the visitation.” (can. 628,3). The text was accepted by the Order. Only three brothers proposed [Prot. N.; X-00033] deleting the word trustfully.

(7) The current text has been modified and expanded to give greater prominence to the conclusions of the pastoral visitation and to highlight the need to implement its recommendations. In particular, note the insistence on the assessment by the fraternity of how the conclusions of the visitation have been implemented.

ARTICLE II: THE LOVING OBEDIENCE OF THE BROTHERS

N. 165 (164)

Explanatory notes

(1) While the concept itself remains unchanged, it is reformulated using the literal words of St Francis in the Letter to the Faithful (second version), 10. )…….. In his evaluation one brother [Prot. N.; X-00002] noted that “the word will is repeated four times”, and to avoid this he presented the following alternative text (if it is thought appropriate): “Following in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, who throughout his entire life placed his will in the hands of the Father, the brothers, by means of the vow of obedience, offer their ambitions as a sacrifice of themselves to God, and conform themselves continually to the saving plan of God, Whom they love above all else, and bind themselves to the service of the Church.” While agreeing with the observation, the Commission points out that even in the current text the word “will” is repeated three times. In PdR it is added a fourth time because of the expression he placed his will into the Father’s will, which are St Francis’ own words and are very important as well as effective in this particular context.

(2) This §, inserted into the Constitutions by the General Chapter in 1982^[38], highlights the relationship between obedience and fraternal life, and as such clearly refers to mutual obedience, sufficiently rendered by the addition together with the fraternity.

(3) The proposed insertion seems pertinent, since fraternal life finds its archetype in the life of the Trinity and given that the evangelical counsels are a reflection of that same life of the three Divine Persons. The proposed text is derived from Vita consecrata 21: “Obedience, practiced in imitation of Christ, whose food was to do the Father’s will (cf. Jn. 4:34), shows the liberating beauty of a dependence which is not servile but filial, marked by a deep sense of responsibility and animated by mutual trust, which is a reflection in history of the loving harmony between the three Divine Persons”. Only three brothers proposed [Prot. N.; X-00034] “returning to the old text”, observing that: “the communion of the Three Divine Persons” is a beautiful thought. However in this instance it makes the text heavy and does not enlighten the reader unless he is very advanced in mysticism or steeped in theology.” In the explanatory notes to other chapters the Commission has already responded to similar observations as those made by these three brothers. For reasons which were explained above, we consider the expansion of PdR1 and PdR2 to be pertinent and enriching. Moreover, in this way we also accommodate, at least partially, the request [Prot. N.; X-X00005] which was made concerning a new introductory paragraph to this chapter. Finally, the Commission observes that the text of the current Constitutions is not “old”.

(4) One evaluation by eight brothers [Prot. N.; X-00015] “thought that the expression “personal perfection” was outdated and superseded. However, the same brothers did not present an alternative text on which we might now reflect.. For its part the Commission had no objection to the expression found in the current text and thought it right to retain it.

(5) The criterium veritatis (= reality principle) requires that the Constitutions should take account of the fact that obedience is difficult, and that any human mediation of the divine will is always limited and imperfect. The proposed text opens with the words Setting yourselves close to Christ. This is a reference to 1Pt 2, 4: Come close to him: he is the living stone, rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him…. Here, the initial verb come close indicates a strong and decisive movement […. ]. In the gospels, the same verb indicates the movement of the crowds pressing around Jesus in order to listen to Him and be healed by Him, and also the way in which the disciples followed Him. In the text proposed for the Constitutions, therefore, the intention was to indicate the dynamic commitment involved in following Christ, a spiritual movement of advancing towards Him , holding fast to him in faith, exactly as it says in Hb 10, 22 or in John’s gospel, where “moving towards Christ” is parallel to “believing in (pistèuein eis) Him”.

(6) The dynamic nature of the following of Christ implies adherence to His process of humiliation, the acceptance of the entire mystery of His passion and resurrection. It is a sharing in the events that marked His whole life. Hence the proposed text presents the example of Christ, who learned to obey through suffering. This expression, from Hb (5, 8) is of fundamental importance. The original Greek text [….] means: “from (apó) what He suffered, He learned obedience”, in other words, “He learned obedience from his sufferings”. This brings out the educational value of suffering, [ …] not simply as a feature of human life, but highlighting the role of suffering in one’s personal relationship with God, making it closer and more genuine. Through suffering, God purifies and transforms the person, endowing him with His own life (Hb 12,10), so that he is capable of sharing intimacy with God^[39]. Such is the human journey: by suffering, we learn obedience which unites us to God. This was Christ’s journey, too, although He personally had no need of education through suffering. He submitted Himself to this discipleship of suffering “although he was Son” (Hb 5, 8). This clearly brings out the difference between the totally unique manner in which He becomes Son (cf. Hb 1, 3; 4, 14), and our redemption as sons, which necessarily implies a “correction” (cf. Hb 12, 8). Despite this, Christ did suffer, and not only did He suffer, He was transformed by suffering; through it, He learned obedience. This bold affirmation reveals the whole meaning of incarnation and redemption, through which our “flesh and blood” nature, deformed by disobedience and in need of healing, has been recast in the crucible of suffering and transformed by the action of God. In the Son, who accepted to share in the human condition, a new human creature was created, who corresponds perfectly to the divine Plan, because he was constituted by the most total obedience^[40]. To “set oneself close” to Christ, therefore, while progressively advancing towards Him, leads one to become fully docile to God, because Christ’s obedience was superabundant and can overflow even onto us. Ours is a derived obedience; it comes from Christ, from an ever closer contact with Him. At the same time this Christological reference also highlights the dynamic aspect of a life of obedience, in which one must grow and mature. Obedience is learned day by day, especially by facing difficult situations. “It is precisely in these cases of suffering that the consecrated person learns to obey the Lord (cf. Ps 119:7), to listen to him and to remain devoted only to him, waiting patiently and full of hope for his revealing Word (cf. Ps 118:81), in complete and generous openness to accomplishing his will and not one’s own (cf. Lk 22:42).” (Faciem tuam n. 10)

(7) Following the line of Faciem tuam (cf. especially n. 9), the text points to some of the “human mediations” through which God manifests His will. His will is always absolute and perfect, but the same cannot be said of its human instruments. “Mediation by its nature is limited and inferior to that to which it refers, even more so if it is a question of human mediation in relation to the divine will.” (Ibid. n. 10). This aspect is expressed in the Constitutions because of their value for formation: we need to acquire the wisdom of the Spirit, who enables us to recognise the Lord Himself in the person who exercises authority, but who at the same time preserves us from the (far from theoretical) danger of acting on the principle of “the boss knows best, and he is always right”. Wisely, and very practically, Saint Francis foresaw that a subject might see some things that would be better or more useful for his soul than what a prelate commands (Adm III). The sphere in which the religious life and religious obedience normally operate is not that of a choice between good and evil, but of giving attention to various forms of good, and it requires the habitual disposition (in the superiors as well as in the other brothers) to chose the greater good. In other words, this is an area where opinions will differ, and on that level the brother’s opinion is as valid as the minister’s. But Saint Francis warns us that, where the issue is a matter of opinion, in order for there to be true loving obedience, the subject should willingly offer such things [his better opinion] to God as a sacrifice, and instead earnestly strive to fulfil the prelate’s wishes (Adm III, 5). The superior’s decision “concern(s) a field in which the calculation of the greater good can vary according to the point of view. To conclude from the fact that a directive seems objectively less good that it is unlawful and contrary to conscience would mean an unrealistic disregard of the obscurity and ambivalence of many human realities” (Evangelica Testificatio 28). Conscience is not a law unto itself; it must refer to objective norms and, if necessary, must reform and correct itself.

(8) Using an expression of Paul VI (cf. Evangelica testificatio n. 29) the text puts forward once more the example of Christ and the requirement to follow Him by denying oneself and carrying one’s cross, in the conviction that our life of obedience would be meaningless outside of this logical framework. Saint Francis expresses all this in the Salutation of the Virtues when he says that “Holy obedience confounds every corporal and carnal wish, binds its mortified body to obedience of the Spirit and obedience to one’s brother”. The expression binds its mortified body to obedience of the Spirit, in language typical of the Poverello, corresponds to the saying of the gospel: “If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny (abneget) himself” (Mt 16,24). The redemptive self-denial of obedience means “saying no” to one’s own will. In obedience, the salvific “expropriation of self” (expropriatio) is realised, by which a human being once again belongs fully to God, and becomes His property. All of this is accomplished through submission to the Spirit of the Lord, and by imitating the obedience of Christ, by carrying the cross with Him and like Him. “We must also deny ourselves and place our bodies under the yoke of service and of holy obedience, as each of us has promised to the Lord” (Letter to the Faithful [2^nd version] 40)^[41].

(9) The exhortation let them persevere in fraternal communion, thus living in perfect obedience is based on the III Admonition. Referring to this, the Constitutions (cf. n. 165, 2-3) speak of the first two degrees of obedience according to the teaching of Saint Francis: 1°) true obedience, when the brother does or says anything which he knows is not against his [the prelate’s] will, provided that what he does is good (Adm III, 4; cf. Const 165,2 ); 2°) loving obedience, when the subject sees that some things might be better or more useful for his soul than what a prelate commands, let him willingly offer such things to God as a sacrifice and instead let him earnestly strive to fulfil the prelate’s wishes (Adm III, 5-6; cf. Const 165,3). Now we propose to introduce into the Constitutions an explanation of the third degree of Franciscan obedience: perfect obedience, because it cannot be considered as an extreme case or something entirely theoretical in the life of our fraternities. It could not be more relevant and topical, both on the level of mutual obedience and at the level of relationships between ministers. Francis teaches us: “If the prelate, however, commands something contrary to his conscience, even though he may not obey him, let him not, however, abandon him. And if he then suffers persecution from others, let him love them all the more for the sake of God. For whoever chooses to suffer persecution rather than be separated from his brothers truly remains in perfect obedience, because he lays down his life for his brothers” (Adm III, 7-9). In St Francis’ mind, not to abandon the superior in a difficult case, or even when he commands something that is against our conscience, means not only remaining juridically united with the minister, but also avoiding all forms of psychological distancing, lack of charity, refusal to co-operate or to share responsibility. Even the life of the local fraternity, in pastoral work and inter-personal relationships, must shun any such “distancing”, whenever there may be a variety of opinions and the management of the fraternity may seem to us to be less than ideal. St. Francis leads us to the most extreme, hardest and humanly speaking least justifiable consequences, and offers us a code of conduct for such extreme circumstances, in which the primacy of charity and love, and the unity with the brothers we have sworn to God in our religious profession, can never be brought into question. In the last analysis it is a question of giving one’s life to God for the sake of the brothers, in other words, of redeeming them, if relationships within the fraternity have become so onerous that life becomes impossible. At precisely that point, a stronger and more generous love ought to emerge. Commenting on Saint Francis’ Admonition, the Instruction Faciem tuam says: “This reminds us that love and communion represent supreme values to which even the exercise of authority and obedience are subordinated.… It is in saying these difficult “yeses” that one can understand in depth the sense of obedience as a supreme act of freedom, expressed in total and confident abandoning of oneself to Christ, the Son freely obedient to the Father, and one can understand the sense of mission as an obedient offering of oneself that brings the blessing of the Most High: “I will bless you with every blessing…(and) all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen 22:17, 18). In that blessing obedient consecrated persons know that they will again find all that they left with the sacrifice of their being detached; within that blessing is also hidden the full realization of their own humanity (cf. Jn 12:25).” (n. 26).

(10) The aspect of obedience as a sharing in the redemption accomplished by Christ is also present in Admonition III of Saint Francis^[42]. The Apostolic Exhortation Redemptionis donum is significant in this regard: “In the counsel of ‘obedience they wish to discover their own role (in Latin: proprias partes) in the redemption of Christ and their own sanctification” (n. 13). The new text was accepted by the Order. Only three brothers proposed [Prot. N.; X-00035] “deleting the whole paragraph” because – they state – the idea is excellent but would be better in another place. It could be included in a ‘spiritual’ compendium.” The explanatory notes that have now been spelled out explain the meaning of the text sufficiently and give the reasons for its inclusion in the Constitutions in view of the criterium veritatis (criterion of truth) that led the Commission to point out both the difficulties of the ministers in carrying out their authority and of the brothers in living obedience. For all the reasons mentioned, and taking into account that the text was not contested by the Order, the Commission proposed it again in PdR2.

N. 166 (165)

Explanatory notes

(1) Project 2006, introduces this text into its prologue to chapter X: “This is why he warns that lesser brothers are to serve and obey one another, and describes the service of the ministers and guardians as an aid to such mutual obedience, and he does not omit to recall the need for fraternal vigilance, which the other brothers are to exercise over their ministers” (118,4). Accepting the final part of this sentence in the Project, we propose to begin the text with an expression drawn from 1Ts 5, 13 and from Rnb V,3. Three brothers proposed [Prot. N.; X-00009] deleting and consider their actions thoughtfully and carefully.

(2) The change is due to the introduction of the preceding sentence.

(3) Two brothers proposed [Prot. N.; X-00009] to expand the text by saying: “whatever good a brother does with the right intention is true and on his own initiative…” The Commission did not think that such an explanation was necessary since in this case it does not enrich the content of the text but gives the impression of repetition.

N. 167 (166)

N. 168 (167)

Explanatory notes

(1) The proposed insertion at the end of the § links up with what we have said previously. Here, we wish to strengthen the sense of reciprocal obedience among the brothers. The text expresses St Francis’ intention: starting from his convictions about universal brotherhood, he speaks of obedience to one’s own brothers and of being “subject and submissive to everyone in the world, not only to people but to every beast and wild animal as well, that they may do whatever they want with (him) in so far as it has been given to them from above by the Lord” (SalV). Human beings and all creatures are related, each is a gift of God to the other and a representative of God’s will. “True fraternity is based on the recognition of the dignity of the brothers or sisters and becomes concrete in the attention given to others and to their needs, in the capacity to rejoice in their gifts and their fulfilment, in placing at their disposition the proper time to listen and to be enlightened; however, this demands being interiorly free. …. Rather, free are those persons who live constantly attentive and reach out to take advice in every situation in life, and above all from every person who lives next to them, a mediation of the will of the Lord, however mysterious. “It was for liberty that Christ freed us” (Gal 5:1). He has freed us that we might be able to encounter God in the innumerable ways in daily life.” (Faciem tuam n. 20 g). The addition at the end of the text, as it had been introduced by PdR2, was retained, but for reasons of style let us accept one another was replaced by accepting one another. A group of eight brothers proposed [Prot. N.; X-00017] deleting serve one another willingly and obey one another reciprocally because it had been said many times already. This request was justified but the Commission thought that it was opportune to intervene on n. 159, 5 (Introduction), making both numbers (159 and 160) more faithful to the current text.

(2) A group if eight brothers proposed [Prot. N.; X-00020] to begin this paragraph with the following: “Moved by Christ’s example who was obedient to death on the Cross and sustained by the Spirit of the Lord and His holy activity …”, claiming that “it was appropriate, and even encouraging, in the final paragraph of the chapter to refer to Christ’s example. In this way, Christ’s redemptive work and the ever-present sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit would be properly highlighted. The Commission thought hard about this proposal but decided not to accept it, both to avoid repetition and taking into account that chapter ten refers to Christ being obedient to the death (cf. n. 159, 1), and that the new text in n. 166, 5 makes reference to Christ, who although being the Son learnt obedience through the things which he suffered and to the Cross being the greatest proof of love. However, we stress that by linking the beginning and end of the chapter as this proposal suggests, one would have a statement of particular value. In such a way the whole of chapter ten would acquire greater Christological substance; the entire chapter would be seen in terms of looking to Christ, the Obedient One. In Him, obedience appears above all as a saving event that establishes and constitutes a new order of human relationships, and from Him we learn why we should obey and how we should obey. We discover the nature and basis of obedience in Him, which is not based on reason, but on the kerygma, on the proclamation that Christ “became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross” (Phil 2, 8).

(3) We do not propose any change to the text, simply an improved translation, closer to the meaning of the original. In the phrase magna incepta fortiter aggrediamur, incepta refers not so much to new initiatives, but rather to things that are already under way, have already been begun. Similarly, the verb ag-gredio, simply means “to advance, or walk towards^[43]. This can be deduced both from the history of the Constitutions and from the first translations of the current text, at least into Italian. The Constitutions in force until 1968, in n. 233 (the last number of chapter X) had a commentary on the corresponding text of the Rule: “I admonish and exhort the brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ to beware of all pride, vainglory, envy, avarice, care and solicitude for the things of this world, of detraction, and murmuring. And those who are illiterate shall not be anxious to learn, but let them endeavour to have what is to be above all things desired, the Spirit of the Lord and His holy operation; let them endeavour to pray always with a pure heart, and to have humility and patience in persecution and infirmity, and to love those who persecute, reprove and censure us, because our Lord says “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you. Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. He who perseveres to the end, he shall be saved” (X, 7-12). The C.C.L., which prepared the new text for the General Chapter of 1968, wanted to remain faithful to the original structure, at least as far as the basic content was concerned. Therefore, in his presentation to the 1968 Chapter, the relator said: “And so we come to the final number (193), the intention of which was… to comment on this profound and very beautiful exhortation of our holy Father. According to the text of the Rule, this commentary ought to be expanded with the following elements: a) a warning against what could be called “spiritual sins”, which should be most carefully avoided by brothers who are consecrated to God, namely, pride, vainglory, envy, avarice, care and solicitude for the things of this world, detraction and murmuring; b) an exhortation to cultivate the desire for the Spirit of the Lord and His holy operation, especially through prayer that is humble and pure; c) a profound respect for the spirit of evangelical humility, patience and love for persecutors of whatever kind; d) the consolation of hope that is founded in God, by which those who are poor in spirit are raised up by the desire to possess the kingdom of heaven; e) fortitude and perseverance, that they may obtain their final reward from God. And indeed, all of these things are contained, according to the mind of our holy Father, in the epilogue to the chapter on obedience. Praiseworthy virtues, and the richest fruits of a theological, spiritual and social kind, are in evidence from that brotherhood of men who, for the sake of God whom they love above all else, have renounced everything, who willingly obey one another, and live in subjection to every creature in poverty of spirit”^[44]. The Chapter then approved the prepared text, which has come down to us with slight stylistic variations introduced in 1982. In the light of the fundamental principles which inspired the drafting of the text, we can understand the first (Italian) translations of the phrase in question: let us courageously tackle the great things we have undertaken (Italian ed., 1969 and 71); let us courageously tackle the great works we have undertaken (1978); let us steadfastly persevere… in the sublime way upon which we have embarked. (Italian ed., 1990).

1. Cfr. Schema provisorium capitum VII – XII Constitutionum OFMCap. a Commissione Capitulari Legislationis elaboratum et sudicio Provinciarum submissum. Pars prima. Textus continuus cum notulis (Pro Manuscripto). Romae, Officium Secretariatus C.C.L., 1968; 287-371; Schema Constitutionum nostrarum. Textus continuus quinquies emendatus… Romae, Officium Secretariatus C.C.L., 1968; 139-149. ↑
2. Cf. Acta Capituli generalis specialis Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Capuccinorum Romae a die 19 Augusti ad 25 Octobris 1968 celebrati. II vol. Romae, Curia generalis OFMCap., 1969; 39-45. In seguito l’opera verrà indicata solo con: Acta 1968. ↑
3. Cf. Acta 1968, II, 80-85. ↑
4. Cf. Acta Capituli Generalis LXXIX Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Capuccinorum. Romae a die 1 iunii ad 11 iulii 1982 in Collegio S. Laurentii a Brundisio celebrati. Roma, Curia Generalis OFMCap., 1983; 274-278; Fr. Iglesias (a cura di), Constitutiones Fratrum Minorum Capuccinorum post Concilium Vaticanum II retractatae (a.1968-1988). I. Textus. Romae, Curia generalis OFMCap., 1988; 145-152. Herein these works will be referred to as Acta 1982 and Iglesias I. ↑
5. Herein this document of the Congregation For Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (or Congregatio pro Institutis vitae consecratae et Societatibus vitae apostolicae = CIVCSVA) will be referred to as Faciem tuam). ↑
6. “il dovere pastorale dei ministri” and “l’obbedienza caritativa dei frati” (Translator). ↑
7. Cf. Acta 1968, II, 40. ↑
8. San Basilio, Le Regole più brevi 115; PG 31, 1161. An anthology of texts on mutual obedience can found in: Il cammino del monaco. La vita monastica secondo la tradizione dei padri. Introduzione, scelta traduzione dalle lingue originali a cura di Luigi d’Ayala Valva. Magnano, Edizioni Qiqaion, 2009; I,42; II,14; VII,110; X,26-45; XI,15; XII,19. Cf. also A. Pigna, Obbedienza cristiana e religiosa. Roma, Edizioni O.C.D. [s.d.]; 53-58. ↑
9. Cf. Faciem tuam n. 25 d; 26. ↑
10. O. van Asseldonk, Spirito Santo in Dizionario Francescano. Padova ²1995; 1932-1933. ↑
11. Cf. Lexicon latinitatis Medii Aevi (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Medievalis). Turnholti 1975; 149. ↑
12. O. van Asseldonk, Le Lettere di S. Pietro negli Scritti di s. Francesco in La Lettera e lo Spirito. II. Roma 1985; 436. A hapax is a word or expression that is unique within a particular literary corpus, in this case, the expression loving obedience occurs only once in the Scriptures, namely, 1 Pet 1,22. ↑
13. “Il contesto pietrino tratta chiaramente della carità fraterna, vissuta in una sincera e servizievole carità reciproca.” Ibid 436. ↑
14. M. Mazzeo, o. c. 80. ↑
15. Cf. E. Bosetti, o. c. 62. ↑
16. “Perfect obedience. In reality, perfect obedience ignores the law. It does not let itself be coerced by its limitations. Unsatisfied with the restrictions contained in profession, with one impulse of the will it reaches the vast domain of charity. Giving itself spontaneously to every command, with a vigorous and generous spirit, intolerant of every boundary, it moves about with infinite freedom. The Apostle Peter speaks about this especially when he states, “Purifying your hearts in the obedience of charity.” He happily distinguishes this obedience then from impassive and servile obedience, so to speak, which does not respond to the call of charity but to the demands of necessity. This is the proper obedience of the just person for whom the law was not instituted: not because the perfect man should live without law, but because he is not a slave to the law. Far from being satisfied by the vows he professes he surpasses their limits with the devotion of his spirit. Even the Rule ignores this kind of obedience when it exhorts, “If a brother is ordered to do impossible things, let him obey out of charity, trusting in God’s help.” Moreover the same Rule describes the third degree of humility in this way: “let the monk submit to the superior in complete obedience.” The expression, “complete obedience” does not mean that he should be satisfied with the terms imposed by profession, nor to simply hold himself to the obligations contained in his promise, or hold formal observance in special consideration. Rather he is invited to carefully transcend even his vow and to obey in everything. If there is a limitation to obedience in time it is the end of time. By this the end of obedience is identified with the find of life. Above all, this is the example of the Only Begotten Son who showed himself obedient to the Father even unto death. Each time this attitude is diminished, one can speak of disobedience, sin, transgression or prevarication” (trans. of S. Bernardo, Il precetto e la dispensa VI, 12 in Idem, Trattati [Opere di san Bernardo I]. Roma 1957 – Milano 1984; 519). ↑
17. K. Synowczyk (op.ciy. 353 + note 36) refers to De natura et dignitate amoris di William of St. Thierry 9. ↑
18. Cf. K. Synowczyk, o.c. 352-353. ↑
19. K. Synowczyk, o.c. 368. ↑
20. Cf. K. Esser, Le Ammonizioni … 53-63; L. Iriarte, Vocazione francescana. Sintesi degli ideali di san Francesco e di santa Chiara. Quarta edizione italiana a cura di Th. Jansen e W. Block (Teologia spirituale). Bologna 2006; 239-263; J. Micó, Vivir el Evangelio. La espiritualidad de Francisco de Asís. Valencia 1998; 308-309. ↑
21. Cf. D. Dozzi, Il Vangelo nella Regola non bollata di Francesco d’Assisi (Bibliotheca Seraphico-Capuccina, 36). Roma 1989; 132-136; 150-153. ↑
22. Cr. K. Synowczyk, L’obedienza secondo san Francesco d’Assisi. Alcune chiavi essenziali di lettura. Roma 1987; 97-143. ↑
23. K. Esser, Le Ammonizioni di san Francesco. Roma, 1974; 46. ↑
24. Cf. The text follows the study of K. Synowczyk, quoted earlier. Cf. also K. Esser, Le Ammonizioni ... 42-52; Idem, Impegno alla libertà (L’obedience secondo S. Francesco d’Assisi) in Temi spirituali (Presenza di san Francesco 11). Milano 1973; 95-117. ↑
25. Schema provisorium capitum VII – XII Constitutionum OFMCap… n. 181, note 4. ↑
26. Schema provisorium capitum VII – XII Constitutionum OFMCap… n. 181, note. ↑
27. Cf. Dizionario esegetico del Nuovo Testamento 2, 1114: E. Bosetti, o.c. 204. ↑
28. Cf. M. Mazzeo, o.c. 166-167. ↑
29. Cf. M. Mazzeo, o. c. 168. ↑
30. Cf. M. Mazzeo, Lettere di Pietro. Lettera di Giuda. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento. Milano 2002; 168; E. Bosetti, Prima lettera di Pietro. Introduzione e commento. Padova 2004; 206. ↑
31. Br. Flavio Roberto Carraro, Min. gen., Our Ongoing Formation. Circular Letter n. 13, 3 b. ↑
32. CICLSAL, Fraternal Life in Community. “Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor” (2 February 1994) n. 50 b. The Document is subsequently abbreviated to VFC. ↑
33. Cf. VFC 50; Faciem tuam n. 13 a. ↑
34. Schema provisorium capitum VII – XII Constitutionum OFMCap… n. 195, p. 311; Schema Constitutionum nostrarum. Textus continuus quinquies emendatus… n. 195, p. 142. ↑
35. Cf. Acta 1968, II, 217. 311. ↑
36. Cf. Acta 1968, II,457. ↑
37. Cf. Iglesias I, 149, note 12. ↑
38. Cf. Acta 1982, 277; Iglesias I, 150, note 12. ↑
39. Cf. F. Urso, La sofferenza educatrice nella Lettera agli Ebrei. Bologna 2007; 17-83. ↑
40. Cr. A. Vanhoye, Sacerdoti antichi e nuovo Sacerdote secondo il Nuovo Testamento. Torino-L 1985; F. Urso, o.c. 85-145. ↑
41. Cf. K. Esser, Impegno alla libertà… 111-112. ↑
42. Cf. K. Esser, Le ammonizioni… 59-63; Idem, Impegno alla libertà… 111-113. ↑
43. Cf. A. Ernout – A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire de mots. Paris 42001; 279-280. ↑
44. Cf. Acta 1968, II, 44. ↑