Decree on the adaptation and renewal of religious life Perfectae Caritatis

The text of the later decree Perfectae Caritatis appeared very late at the Council. During the Spring of 1964, the commission on religious life produced a text of four pages that was sent to the fathers and received heavy critique from them. Cardinal Döpfner from Munich was especially angry and disappointed. In the discussion of the third session in the fall of 1964, he openly doubted that the religious orders could contribute to the reform of the Church at all (Vilanova, Evangelista. 1998. “L´intersessione (1963–1964).” In Il concilio adulto.settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 367–512. 421.Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

We must see Perfectae Caritatis in the context of the making of the document on the Church. On October 18, 1962, Cardinal Suenens from Belgium, had asked his trusted theologian Philips to work over the prepared scheme De Ecclesia that is the document about the Church (Ruggieri, Giuseppe. 1996. “Il difficile abbandono dell’ecclesiologia controversista.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 309–384. 310. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Suenens wanted that the document started with the Church itself and Philips began a first chapter on the Church as people of Go’d, as a mystery and as a mystical body (ibid.). Philips was not only priest and theologian, but he was also member of the Upper House of the Belgium parliament and mastering the art of political compromise finding. He managed to integrate the interests of the bishops at the Second Vatican Councils into the texts he prepared in a way that produced consensus. He considered not only the point of view of the bishops, he succeeded to integrate also the contributions of his fellow theological colleagues at the Council. Basic theological thoughts of Karl Rahner, the theological expert of Cardinal König from Vienna, Austria, thus entered into the text on the Church.

Rahner had argued that the counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience of the Gospel were well practiced before the existence of any religious orders and therefore stay at the basis of Christian life for all, lay, clerics and monks. Rahner wanted to see the laity, men and women to be considered as constitutive for the Church, and the Church therefore seen as the People of Go’d (ibid. 338–43). Many of the superiors of the religious orders that were attending the Second Vatican Council were not happy with this theology of their Jesuit brother Karl Rahner. In the spring of 1964, the commission working on a text on the Church had to take notice that 679 bishops, including 17 cardinals from different religious orders and the conference of the superior generals of the religious orders tried hard to prevent the assessment of a universal vocation to sanctity. They thought the religious vocation to be superior to the vocation of the laity in the Church (Hünermann, Peter. 2004. “Theologischer Kommentar zur dogmatischen Konstitution über die Kirche Lumen Gentium.“ In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol 2, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 263–583. 483-84. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

The religious orders were resisting abandoning their moral privileges, but also their many other privileges that exempted them from the juridical and governmental powers of the bishops and let them govern their affairs in great independence from Church authorities. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council in the end succeeded to assure that the religious orders are under the control of the pope and the hierarchy, “It is the duty of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to regulate the practice of the evangelical counsels by law” (Lumen Gentium 45). The pope and the hierarchy do not like religious orders or religious individuals who are too independent of the Roman authority or who criticize too much and become publicly visible as opposition to the pope (ibid. 495). Church jurisdiction over the religious orders is important for the bishops. The pastoral in the mission countries during colonialism was largely in the hand of religious orders. The Roman Pontiff encountered difficulties establishing his hierarchy of bishops and priests once the countries had reached independence from the colonial powers.

The discussions on the scheme on the Church were very controversial. From November 10 to 12, 1964, the discussion on the scheme on the religious repeated many points from the discussion of the scheme on the church (Tanner, Norman. 1999. “La chiesa nella società: ecclesia ad extra.” In La chiesa come communione settember 1964 – settember 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 293–416. 394. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Cardinal Suenens opposed the presented scheme because the nuns were treated as inferior to the monks and priests, and Christ was not put at the center of the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience (ibid. 396).

The Archbishop of Liverpool, George Andrew Beck (1904–1978), initiated the first consultation of women general superiors of female religious orders on the decree on the religious in February 1965 (Schmiedl, Joachim. „Theologischer Kommentar zum Dekret über die zeitgemäße Erneuerung des Ordenslebens Perfectae caritatis.“ In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 3, 491–550. 509. Freiburg: Herder). Not surprisingly, the women superiors of all religious communities claimed a more active part of the religious in the world and an adequate adaption of religious life to the necessities of the changing world (ibid.). The French and English-speaking women religious asked for fundamental reforms of religious life; the Italian religious women were reserved on reform and warned of modernizing too much (ibid.). It is incredible: The women religious outnumber the male religious by 3:1, the Second Vatican Council is working on a text on religious life and for three years the male religious and bishops do not even consult let alone cooperate with women religious on the text that concerns them profoundly.

In February 1965, the French Dominican archbishop Paul-Pierre Philippe, since 1959 secretary of the Congregation for Religious and later Cardinal, directed the work on the text of the scheme and a final text was successfully established (Burigana and Turbanti 1999, 619). Pope Paul VI proclaimed the Decree on the adaptation and renewal of religious life Perfectae Caritatis on October 28, 1965 (See my Post “Preparing documents on the bishops, priests, religious and the lay”).

Perfectae Caritatis 1 integrates the decree into the Christ centered theology of religious life and the people of Go’d of Lumen Gentium 43–47 and then assesses the profession of the three evangelical counsels as the foundation of religious life. Perfectae Caritatis 2–4 claim the renewal of religious life by returning “to the sources of all Christian life and to the original spirit of the institutions”. Perfectae Caritatis 5–11 speak of the realization of the evangelical counsels chastity, poverty and obedience by the religious institutions according to their apostolic charisma as religious brothers, sisters, monks, nuns living in religious institutes, or in secular institutes living as lay people. Perfectae Caritatis 10 speaks of “the religious life, undertaken by lay people” and thereby remind us of the lay origin of religious life in the history of the Church (Schmiedl 2005, 523). Laywomen and men constituted most of the early Christian monasticism in Egypt, Palestine and Asia Minor as of the Benedictine family. Monastic clergy grew from the eighth and ninth century CE onwards but the lay faithful were indispensable for the monasteries throughout their history (ibid.).

Perfectae Caritatis 12–15 speaks again of the evangelical counsels and of community life. Perfectae Caritatis 15 sticks to the Christian community in Jerusalem as the model for common life of the community of the religious, “The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common” (Acts 4, 32). For centuries, religious communities and orders design their community life according to the model of Acts 4, 32 (Schmiedl 2005, 530). Luke does not present a historic picture of the first Christians and their community in Jerusalem. Acts 4, 32 is a very idealized picture and taking the context of the community in Jerusalem into consideration, we see that the Christian couple of Ananias and Sapphira could not resist the capitalist temptation of keeping some money for themselves. They told the community in Jerusalem otherwise and there was no opportunity to repent their fraud, forgiveness was no option for the community in the story of Luke and the couple had to die (Acts 5, 1-11). Let us suppose that Luke speaks of a symbolic death, the death of faith and hope and love and let us suppose that the Christian community in Jerusalem was a normal community with normal conflicts and reconciliations.

I do not understand how the description of Luke of that community in Jerusalem survived centuries as role model for Christian religious communities. A few chapters later we read in Acts about Saint Paul who travels around the Mediterranean to collect money for the impoverished community in Jerusalem. The community in Jerusalem could not serve as an economic role model, because economically the community failed. The religious orders that populated the Christian cosmos over the centuries usually were very successful economically. Most of them started out in real existential poverty, but over the course of a century or more, they ended up being rich, powerful and privileged and needed reform. Perfectae Caritatis 16–24 speaks of norms concerning housing, clothing, foundation, lifestyle and cooperation of major superiors. The Council was conscious of the material side of monastic life and of the necessity to order the world matters and not only the spiritual ones. There were many reforms of monastic life, the Second Vatican Council did not dare to bring about a full reform of monastic life that was adapted to the needs of the time. The Council took the easy way, neglected the existential crisis of monastic life in the Roman Catholic Church, and assures in Perfectae Caritatis 25 the religious institutes the appreciation of the Council and hopes for a great future of religious life (ibid. 511).

Religious priests are globally in decline. In 2015, there were 134,000 religious priests. The group of professed men religious other than priests constitutes a group that is in global decline: from 54,665 individuals in 2010 to 54,229 in 2015. Only in Africa and Asia, is there an increase. At the global level, women religious have decreased in number from 721,935 in 2010 to 659,445 in 2016. Only in Africa and in Southeast Asia is there an increase. Only in Africa and Asia, is the number of religious priests increasing. North America, Europe and Oceania have experienced a sharp decline.[i] 

The name of the decree Perfectae Caritatis, translates as “perfect love” and expresses the two fundamental questions of religious life: What is Christian love and who is realizing love in the Church? The decree did not answer these questions in a way that would lead young people to embrace religious life as their personal realization of life as Christians. Thirty percent of the world’s Catholics live in South America and the number of religious there is in constant and accelerating decline.

Full reform of monastic life would have to work on the significance of Jesus Christ for the religious. The Second Vatican Council could have worked on the threefold supreme commandment of Jesus.  Perfectae Caritatis repeatedly speaks of the love of Go’d and the love of neighbor but never cites the threefold supreme commandment of Jesus:

“This is the first: Listen, Israel, the Lord our God is the one, only Lord, and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12, 28-31). The aim of self-love is the assessment of one’s physical-psychic-social-spiritual integrity. The assessment of one’s integrity is the validity condition for relating to Go’d and for relating to others. The assessment of one’s integrity is part of one’s dignity and the social realization of one’s dignity is the validity condition of every communication. Responsibility, assessment and accountability for one’s integrity is an essential practice of self-love. According to Jesus, love is the perfection of Christian faith, the evangelical counsels are secondary virtues.

The Second Vatican Council did not develop a model for Christian life based on love. The supreme commandment of Jesus is not developed in the documents, Christ is not connected to love, but to chastity, poverty and obedience. Perfectae Caritatis 1 says that “from the very beginning of the Church, men and women have set about following Christ … through the practice of the evangelical counsels” of chastity, poverty and obedience. The Council appreciates the “wonderful variety of religious communities” whose members “bind themselves to the Lord in a special way”. This special way of “imitating” Christ in the past was the way of the evangelical counsels. It is also clear for the Council that chastity, poverty and obedience not only constitute the present way of “following” Christ but constitute also for the future the perfect way of life for all Christians and religious.

What could a theology of Christian life that is based on the supreme Commandment of love of Jesus look like in the 21st century? A theology of self-love that is based on the integrity of the individual woman, man and queer, a theology of the love of Go’d for women, men and queer and the love of women, men and queer for Go’d and one’s neighbors must aim at justice and peace. The possibility condition for justice and peace on earth are Human Rights and the rule of Human Rights law (See my Post “Describing the just world of Go’d”).

A theology of the supreme commandment of love of Jesus in the 21st century needs to assess our period that by many is already called the Anthropocene, as the period that demands a plurality of social choices for change in human behavior in the best interest of “human wellbeing within planetary boundaries” (Earth for All. A Survival Guide for Humanity. Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Owen Gaffney, Jayati Ghosh, Jorgen Randers, Johan Rockström, Per Espen Stoknes. New Society Publishers. Canada. 2022. 8). Realizing the supreme commandment of Jesus, first, we have to end poverty because “As a result of inequalities within countries, social tensions are likely to rise toward the middle of the twenty-first century” (ibid.: 5). Second, we must adequately respond to the climate and ecological emergency, otherwise “the impacts of crossing climate and ecological tipping points are likely to last centuries to millennia” (ibid.). Third, “transforming gender power imbalances” which “requires empowering women and investing in education and health for all” (ibid. 20). Fourth, “to transform agriculture, diets, food access and food waste”, creating a food system that is regenerative and nature positive by “storing vast volumes of carbon in soils, roots and trunks” (ibid.). Fifth, “we must transform energy systems to increase efficiency, accelerate the rollout of wind and solar electricity, halve emissions of greenhouse gases every decade, and provide clean energy to those without (ibid. 20, 21) (See my Posting “Planet earth and democracy”).

Perfectae Caritatis 1, 3 claims with Matthew 8, 20 (“Jesus said, ‘Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head’”) and the parallel in Luke 9, 58 that Christ observed the evangelical counsels of chastity and poverty. The context of Luke 9, 58 is completely neglected by Perfectae Caritatis. Luke 9, 58 is part of the narrative of Luke 9, 57–61 on the response to apostolic calling. The larger context of this narrative for the called apostles is Luke 9, 51 – 13, 21 where Jesus informs his disciples on the life of the Christian. It is not serious to isolate a verse on apostolic calling and present this verse as the center of Christian life. At the center of this narrative on Christian life, we find the great commandment (Luke 10, 25–28), the parable of the good Samaritan that exemplifies the commandment of proving oneself a loving neighbor (Luke 10, 29–37), the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10, 38–42), and the Lord’s prayer (Luke 11, 1–4). Jesus encourages Mary to neglect her traditional women’s role and assume the role of a disciple. She “seated herself beside the Lord’s feet”–the typical position of a disciple with the teacher–, and “was hearing his word” (Luke 10, 38). Jesus affirms that Mary has chosen rightly and her part will not be taken from her (Luke 10, 42) (Tannehill 1991, 137). The whole of Luke 9, 51 – 19, 28 constitutes the so-called report of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem “as the time drew near for him to be taken up, he resolutely turned his face towards Jerusalem” (Luke 9, 51) (Bovon, Francois. 1996. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 9,51–14,35. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/2. 32. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag).

Perfectae Caritatis 1, 3 cites also the parallel of Luke 9, 58 that is Matthew 8, 20: “Jesus said, ‘Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head’”. I understand that his verse indicates the poverty of Jesus and his instruction to a possible disciple that poverty is part of the life of a disciple. Indeed, all Christians are called to share their goods, so that there may be no poor among them as Acts 4, 34 ideally pictures the early Christian community in Jerusalem where “none of their members was ever in want”. There is a clear link of poverty to the life of the community, poverty aims at giving for the needs of the community.

I do not understand that Luke 9, 58 and Matthew 8, 20 document Jesus’ renunciation of genital, sexual relationships as Perfectae Caritatis 1, 3 affirms. I doubt anyways that radical chastity “witnesses to the deeper possibilities of personal communion latent in all humans (sexual) relationships” (Johnstone, Brian V. 1987. “Evangelical Counsels.” In The New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and, Dermot, A. Lane, 355–367. 356. Collegeville, Minnesota: Michael Glazier). I do not agree with Johnstone who claims that the genital embodiment of sexual relationships make human loving relationships a secondary element of love (ibid.). There are loving relationships without genital sexuality, there are sexual relationships without love and there are loving sexual relationship. We do not know about the sexual life of Jesus, but the doctrine of the Church is clear in the words of Leo the Great. “One and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man” (Leo the Great. 2016. “Letter 28. The Tome.” New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604028.htm).

The Council of Chalcedon that was convoked by the emperor in 451 CE assessed that “complete humanity and undiminished divinity” are “interacting in total harmony in this man Jesus” (Nolan, Brian M. 1987. “Nature” In The New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot Lane, 710–713. 713. Collegeville, Minnesota: Michael Glazier). If Jesus is truly son of man that is if he embodied a complete humanity, then there is sexuality with Jesus. Concerning the profession of the evangelical counsel of chastity by the faithful, Perfectae Caritatis 12, 1 speaks of chastity as an “outstanding gift of grace” and refers to 1 Corinthians 7, 32-35. In these verses of the first letter to the Corinthians Paul speaks of “staying unmarried” in order that the faithful give their “undivided attention to the Lord”. In the 21st century CE we are thinking more positive about the qualities of partnership and faith.

With reference to Philippians, Perfectae Caritatis 1, 3 claims that “through obedience even to the death of the Cross (Philippians 2, 8)” Christ realized the evangelical counsel of obedience. From this interpretation of the Cross follows that the title of the decree on religious life Perfectae Caritatis that is “perfect love”, should be changed to “perfect obedience”. Obedience to the death does not enrich life and does not empower the religious or any faithful to contribute to a full life of dignity, freedom and rights. Giving one’s life for rescuing the life of another woman, man or queer is a different topic. Living cells interact in a living body for sustaining life. Therefore, religious communities need living women, men and queer as a possibility condition for the claim that consecrated life of the profession of the evangelical counsels enriches the life of the Church that is according to Colossians 1, 24 enriches the Body of Christ (Perfectae Caritatis 1, 3). Discipline that kills the individuality of the individual woman, man or queer kills the community.

Christ’s “redeeming and sanctifying” offering of himself was for the love of Go’d. Go’d loved Jesus and Jesus loved Go’d. Why is it so difficult for Church officials to speak of the love of Go’d for Jesus and why is it so important for the hierarchy to speak of the obedience of Jesus? The law of the Spirit is love and obedience reflects the spirit of the law. Christians get sanctified and redeemed by the faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus’ death is the result of a human crime, resurrection is a gift of Go’d as the Gospel of John rightly claims: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (John 5, 26). The Father gave to the Son to have life in himself. The agency is always of Go’d, that is the faith of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Jesus speaks in John 20, 17 of “my Father” and “your Father” that is the Father of Jesus had now become the Father of his disciples and he calls his disciples “my brothers” (ibid.). The announcements of Jesus in John 16, 27, in John 14, 21 and 23 have come true, the love of Go’d for Jesus turns to the disciples (Bultmann 1964, 533.).

With these citations from John, Bultmann demonstrates that the faith of Easter joins the going to the Father with the cross or joins the cross with the going to the Father (ibid.). Cross and resurrection are the bedrock of the Christian faith. The terms “cross” and “resurrection” for the Christian are believed as one term “cross and resurrection” or “crucifixion and resurrection”, or the terms “cross” and “resurrection” may be used by the Christians exclusively in the form of the adjunction that is an operation with the logical operator “and”.

Perfectae Caritatis 6, 1 is conscious of the faith conviction that Go’d has first loved us and rightly refers to 1 John 4, 10. I am citing 1 John 4, 9–11:

“This is the revelation of Go’d’s love for us, that Go’d sent his only Son into the world that we might have life through him. Love consists in this: it is not we who loved Go’d, but Go’d loved us and sent his Son to expiate our sins. My dear friends, if Go’d loved us so much, we too should love one another.” Perfectae Caritatis 1, 3 describes the following of Christ by the faithful, that is following as the faith-response to the call by Go’d, with reference to Saint Paul and Romans 5, 5 as living and realizing the love of Go’d that “has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us“. Perfectae Caritatis 1, 3 too rapidly speaks of the Holy Spirit and distorts Paul’s theology: First there is the call by Go’d, then there is faith, then there is the gift of the Holy Spirit and then there are the fruits of the Holy Spirit that are “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control; no law can touch such things as these” (Galatians 5, 22-23).

A false understanding of the term obedience enhances the estrangement of young Christian women, men and queer with the evangelical counsel of obedience and with the Church authorities in general. It is very important for the integrity of the individual Christian woman, man and queer to assess that Christian obedience is obedience to the will of Go’d. Church authorities and superiors must find this will of Go’d together in a long and difficult process where the equal dignity, liberty and rights of all participants are assured in discourse, prayer and meditation. A Christian religious never obeys a superior, superior and religious both, obey Go’d. Perfectae Caritatis does not dare to spell out this very old Christian doctrine on religious obedience and its foundation in the will of Go’d with simple words. Instead, the Council prefers complicates sentences and authoritarian tendencies.

Perfectae Caritatis 14 claims that “In professing obedience, religious offer the full surrender of their own will as a sacrifice of themselves to God and so are united permanently and securely to God's salvific will”. The sacrifice or the free renouncement of one’s good clearly concerns Go’d and “Go’d’s salvific will”. Religious obedience is obedience to the “salvific will of Go’d” and not to the will of the superior. It is the task of the superior and her or his sister or brother to explore together and find together the presumed “salvific will of Go’d” in a concrete situation. Perfectae Caritatis 14, 3 affirms that superiors “should exercise their authority out of a spirit of service to the brethren … respecting their human dignity. … They should be particularly careful to respect their subjects’ liberty in the matters of sacramental confession and the direction of conscience” that obedience is understood as active cooperation “in undertaking new tasks” and that “superiors should gladly listen to their subjects and foster harmony among them for the good of the community and the Church …”. The social realization of this kind of obedience needs superiors and sisters and brothers who are empowered with the interactional agency of realizing their dignity.

Perfectae Caritatis 20 claims, “Religious communities should continue to maintain and fulfill the ministries proper to them”. The decades after the Second Vatican Council were characterized by the restriction of this autonomy of the religious communities (Schmiedl 2005, 533). The cooperation of international conferences and councils of major superiors of religious communities with the Roman Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and with the episcopal conferences is still characterized by conflicts of interests (ibid. 534). In the 1970s and 1980s there developed another conflict of interests between the Pope and the religious institutes that led to a crackdown on the self-government of the religious orders and institutes by Pope John Paul II.

Perfectae Caritatis 2 claims “The adaptation and renewal of the religious life includes both the constant return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original spirit of the institutes and their adaptation to the changed conditions of our time.” The Franciscans, the Dominican Order and the Jesuits originally have forms of governments that are characterized by the active participation of all members in the decision processes of the religious community. This concerns not only the election of the superiors, consultations and discussions before big decisions, but this concerned the whole organization and development of community life. The realization of Perfectae Cariatatis 2 made the Franciscan, Dominicans and Jesuits rediscover this original spirit of communitarian participation in the decision-making processes of the community. From December 1974, the 32nd general congregation of the Jesuits for example, assembled 236 elected members (two thirds) and appointed delegates (one third consisting of the provincial superiors) in Rome for three months to discuss and decide on the reform of the institute by free votes on the issues. Pope Paul VI did not like this democratic spirit and the claim that without justice there is no faith, but reluctantly approved the documents of the Jesuits’ congregation. The reform of the Jesuit order functioned as a second foundation and was made possible by Pedro Arrupe who was elected General Superior in the 31st General Congregation in 1965. It took him almost ten years to prepare the Order for reform. Pope John Paul II did not like him, refused his resignation and after having suffered a severe stroke on the 7th of August of 1981 appointed two conservative Jesuits as papal delegates to lead the Jesuits bypassing Arrupe’s elected vicar. Pope John Paul II stopped the Jesuits’ realization of their preferential option for the poor in South America and claimed submission to the two papal delegates he had instituted. Two years later, the Jesuits were allowed to elect a successor to Father Arrupe in their 33rd General Congregation, but as many other religious orders, they never regained their inspiring, innovative and effective charisma for their apostolic work and preferential option for the poor.

[i] “The Pontifical Yearbook 2017 and the ‘Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae’ 2015, 06.04.2017,” The Holy See, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/06/170406e.html (accessed May 17, 2019).