“Dominicanes in synodi coetu de synodalitate”
Throughout the history of the Church certain words have been used to signify a deep desire to “return to the origins”. Such expressions were not meant as a melancholic pining away for times gone by, or as an expression of a desire to escape from the “today” of the present time given us by Providence. Thus, the word “REFORMATION” (often described as “Gregorian” after the first Pope who promoted it) was used by the Church for several centuries. It was in this context that the Order of Preachers was born. St. Dominic, as a part of this reform movement, deeply desired to be faithful to the ideal of life of the Apostles. Perhaps this desire for reform had its “synodal” expression in Councils such as the Fourth Lateran Council which gave impetus and juridical framework to this ideal.
Within the context of the Catholic Church, the expression “Reformation” is perhaps most commonly associated with the Council of Trent and the reforms it inspired in the Church. Its determinations were even studied as a counterpart to the “Reformation” (understood as schismatic), and thus commonly and perhaps too simplistically called “The True Reformation” or “Counter-Reformation”.
As everyone knows, there were truly remarkable individuals who lived during these times and who carried forward the desire to go to the sources. St Catherine of Siena, sometimes called the “Mother of the Reformation”, is one example. Brother Aniceto Fernández, OP, writing to the Order when she was declared Doctor of the Church, described St. Catherine as one “to whom the whole soul of St Dominic seems to have passed”. Another example, from another perpective, is St. Pius V.
After the French Revolution (or “revolutions”, to be more precise: 1789, 1830, 1848) and the so-called Napoleonic Empire, with its anti-clerical tones, etc.) the word “RESTORATION” was adopted. Both the monarchies that the Emperor fought against, and the Church itself, used this word to express the profound desire to return to the origins. For the Church, it was not simply a desire to “go back”. On the contrary, it was necessary for the Church to learn the lessons, the motives and causes of those revolutions and of anticlericalism itself, so as to be able to promote a profound evangelical change! The Order was also at the forefront of this “restoration”. Suffice it to mention Brother Henri-Dominique Lacordaire, OP, in his preaching and his famous Memoir for the Restoration of the Order.
The two world wars raised enormous questions for humanity, especially for Europe, the most visible battlefield of these wars (yet, with various “echoes” in the colonial domains of the European powers). This time it was the word “RENEWAL” that tried to capture this same desire for a return to origins. We can even distinguish various aspects of a “pre-conciliar” renewal (already in liturgical matters, biblical studies, etc.), “conciliar” renewal (the celebration of the Vatican Council as the greatest ecclesial event of the 20th century), and “post-conciliar” renewal (in terms of the consequences of that Synod – as it was in reality and was sometimes called – in the life of the universal Church). We remember many thinkers and theologians of the Order who influenced the conciliar texts with their thoughts: Brother Yves Marie-Joseph Congar, OP, Brother Marie-Dominique Chenu, OP, etc.
Especially (but not exclusively) the “Council Fathers” (in their preparation, development and teachings – implementing them in the whole Church) used other words in their desire to manifest the RENEWAL. Many others – in different languages – adopted these words and used them as the “Fathers” had done in their writings:
- Ressourcement: return to the sources (gratitude for the past)
- Aggiornamento: updating to today (living the present with passion)
- Development: the development of doctrine (looking forward to the future)
What do I mean? Two Documents of the International Theological Commission published during the pontificate of Pope Francis are significant for a deeper understanding of the words SYNOD and SYNODALITY. These documents help us to see these concepts as flowing from the meaning of Baptism and the co-responsibility of every baptised person in the life and mission of the Church; a Church that is synodal. These two documents are Synodality in the Life of the Church (2018) and The sensus fidei in the Life of the Church (2014).
The first of the two cited (written later than the second) clearly displays the main meaning of both terms (SYNOD and SYNODALITY), while recognising that they can also have several analogous meanings. Indeed, we cannot speak of a single univocal sense or meaning of these words; nor can we say that each of their meanings has nothing to do with the other, as if they were totally different expressions, without any profound relationship between them, unequivocal! The temptation of all fundamentalism and its counterpart, relativism, is to either reduce terms to a single, exclusive meaning or else to presume that those with a different perspective use all words in ways that are totally different, Both tendancies prevent true dialogue.
Our “today” of the Church rightly asks us to go deeper into the meaning of this word which expresses with simplicity the ecclesial desire to “walk together”. A semantic, syntactic, morphological analysis of the expression will not suffice. The senus fidei of the People of God understands it even if unable to express it clearly and distinctly the height and breadth, length and depth of the mystery of God manifested in Christ and in his Church. This is manifested above all in the desire to participate, to be part of it. The synodal call, to use a play on words, encourages us. In Spanish it makes more sense: No se aparte, sea parte.
I must admit that in religious life (at least in my personal experience as a friar of the Order of Preachers) especially in chapters (local, provincial and general), I have been a direct and privileged witness of what it means to deal with, to discern, and to define communally all that touches the life of the friars as well as many aspects of the life of the contemplatives of the Order and questions proper to the “Dominican Family”.
During the Order’s celebration of the 8th centenary of its confirmation by the Church, this ALL, SOME, ONE (according to degrees of personal or collegial authority) was presented to us as “sitting around the table”. We are all brothers and sisters (Fratres – Sorores), as friars, sisters (in the communities of our contemplatives and religious Congregations) lay fraternities of the Order, etc.
In this context it is good to re-emphasise the medieval canonical principle or rule of law that permeates our way of life and government: “Quod ad omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet.1” In this spirit, Blessed Humbert of Romans, the fourth successor of St. Dominic (1254-1263), wrote with great wisdom: “The good that is accepted by all is promoted quickly and easily.2”
More precisely, the General Chapters of the friars have succeeded one another with varying frequency from 1220 onwards. If I am not mistaken, with the last General Chapter of definitors held in Tultenango – Mexico (2022), there have now been 291 General Chapters in the history of the Order!
I allow myself a digression, which I believe to be important even if it seems to be a merely “political” note. But the soul of all these institutions proper to the life and government of religious life has been, precisely, “synodality”.
It is important to note the mutual influence of the socio-political systems of the time and of religious life throughout history. Indeed, these apparently diverse worlds are intimately related.
When, in the 12th and 13th centuries, municipalities, guilds, and universities very slowly began to adopt the system of scrutiny and secret ballot, the Orders and the Church had already been using these electoral and deliberative techniques for several centuries.
In 1216, King John of England was obliged to grant the “Magna Carta”—the first stirrings of the parliamentary system. For a century, under the Carta Caritatis (1119), a regularly elected representative assembly had been in operation in the Cistercian Order, which met every year: the General Chapter.
To give a final example, one of the oldest constitutional texts in European history, the Bill of Rights, was composed in 1689. This was almost ten years after Constitutions were adopted by one of the first and most developed religious Institutes dedicated to education: the Brothers of the Christian Schools (De La Salle Brothers).
If we analyse the history of these religious Institutes (the Order of Preachers, among them) from a “natural” point of view, several questions come to mind. How have they survived after so many wars, struggles, tensions, divisions, suppressions or exclaustrations forced by various civil authorities of such diverse forms as those of absolutist monarchies, personalist empires, republics of a clearly anti-clerical nature?
The rules and constitutions of religious institutes founded for the “salvation of souls” continue to be an attempt at “rationalisation” and/or “secularisation” in the sphere of political power of a mission which evidently has a “supernatural” purpose. In these laws, everything seems to be constructed as if Providence did not intervene at every moment, as if everything depended on men. Various prescribed rules, for example, those governing elections, guidelines provide for the prevention of fraud and ensure clarity.
St. Benedict, St. Francis and St. Ignatius, who described authority in religious life in such beautiful language, seemed to foresee future challenges and designed constitutional mechanisms to remove abbots or superiors who were not worthy of their office or who did not adapt their directives to the ends foreseen for each institute. The broad powers of a superior general are such only to the extent that they build up the community which has elected them and promote the means properly ordered to its ends. For this reason, limits to his authority are established. We know – through history – the meaning of the famous maxim: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.3“
Religious institutes must be governed. Thus, the challenges of governing human beings immediately arise, challenges similar – if not identical – to those of civil society or “world”. These include the choice of those who govern, the adaptation of constitutional texts to the changing reality of societies, the balance between rigid centralisation and centrifugal decentralisation, the problems caused by an efficient but distant administration or a style of government that respects the local but lacks a sense of belonging, the rights of subjects and the prerogatives of superiors.
In this way, government in religious life is offered to us as an exceptional political experience continued, not without incident, but at least without rupture for centuries. Such governance is based on certain assumptions: those that are constant, such as the Rule, the Constitutions, the Christian spirit, and others that vary based on the conditions imposed by history4.
The style of government of consecrated persons manifests their spirituality. It is an expression of the charism of the founder who – in the Church, in medio Ecclesiae – was confirmed by the corresponding authority.
Bahía Blanca, 1 May 2024
Memorial of St. Joseph, worker
- Cf. Yves-Marie Congar, “Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet” in Revue historique de droit francais et étranger 36 (Paris 1958) 210-259. ↩︎
- Expositio Regulae, XVI in Opera de vita regulari, ed. J.J. Berthier (Casali 1956) vol I, p. 72; cf. Liber Constitutionum et ordinationum Fratrum Ordinis Praedicatorum (LCO) n. 6. 6 ↩︎
- John Emerich Edward Acton (Napoli 1834 – Tegernsee 1902), in a letter written in April 1887 to Mandell Creighton (future Anglican Bishop of London), uttered his most famous phrase: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely“. ↩︎
- Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the members of the Roman Curia on the occasion of Christmas, 22.12.2005. ↩︎
