Adjust Font Size:

Papel Ocasional Numero 31

Bienvenido / Página Inicial (Español) / Noticias & Información / Publicaciones / Papeles Ocasionales /

The Basilian Way of Life in Our History and Traditions

by Kevin J. Kirley, C.S.B.

AUGUST 2003

Introduction

Is it not true that we take a lot of things for granted?--the soil we walk on, the sky, the clouds, sunshine, rain, the vegetation all around us. It's as though we had a sort of unwritten right to them, and we'd be very distressed if they were not there. Think of more personal things: the ability to see, hear, speak clearly, walk. Living in Anglin House, as I do, gives one a greater appreciation of these precious gifts. Hold a little object up and let it drop. Gravity! we take that for granted. Imagine trying to drink beer from a bottle if there was no gravity. How would it get into the bottle in the first place? The list could go on. Sometime when you can't sleep, just start thinking of the things you take for granted, and give thanks to God for them. Which brings me to The Basilian Way of Life. Is it just another Community publication that we more or less take for granted?

Part I

The Genesis of Our Basic Document

The Basilian Way of Life is our basic document, a blend of the legal aspects of our life as members of a religious congregation (what we used to call Constitutions), and a collection of prescriptions by which we regulate our life together (what we used to call the General Rule). Every group in any walk of life has its ground rules, and ours are expressed in The Basilian Way of Life. (We also have a basic non-constitutional document, Basilian Customs. It is not examined in this paper.) You can look on it as a document handed to you when you show some interest in our way of life, a document that you accept and read through from time to time. In other words you can pretty much take it for granted, and no one would blame you for that because it has happened many times before. I remember when I entered the novitiate in 1944 and saw the two small booklets, the Constitutions and the General Rule, I accepted them as a given and had not the slightest inkling of the work that went into them or the history behind them.

The Basilian Way of Life is largely, though not exclusively, the work of Fr. Fred Black CSB (he died just a few years ago, 9 March 2000). He was commissioned by the General Chapter of 1967 to write an entirely new basic document, 'a moving document, capable of inspiring those who read it, and reflecting the simplicity and unpretentiousness which we feel to be part of our Basilian tradition.' (Chapter Reports, 1967, p224). The Chapter of 1967 made this recommendation because the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) had called for just that kind of updating and renewal in religious congregations (cf Perfectae Caritatis #3).The 'Aggiornamento' of Pope John XIII was the buzz word at the time: bring things up to date.

Our Community did not lag behind in this respect, in fact, it foresaw the call of the Vatican Council when in 1961 it set up a committee to update the Constitutions and General Rule (Frs. G.B. Flahiff - chair, replaced by J.C Wey later in 1961, F.A. Orsini, T.P McLaughlin, L.J. Bondy, J.F. Madden). The committee worked long and hard but when the delegates assembled for the Chapter of 1967, it was pretty obvious that the confreres in general felt that the revised General Rule was just that, a revision of what was there all along, more 'déjà vu', and they readily agreed with Fr. Joe Wey, the superior general, that something entirely new had to be written. A daunting task. Who would or could do it? The lot fell to Fr. Fred Black. Why him? I suppose one could answer Why not him? He was a master of the English language, an experienced Basilian priest (ordained in 1949, hence 18 years a priest), and had just been appointed superior of the curial house, so he would have easy access to the archival records kept there, to the General Council, to the secretary general, Fr. Bob Scollard, and they to him. Fr. Black was not teaching at the time, so he would not have to be replaced in the classroom. Also he was a much respected spiritual director both inside and outside our Community. Everyone seemed to agree that Freddie was the man for the job. He was to be helped by a very select committee: Frs. Elliott Allen (Theology), Bob Crooker (Canon Law), Bill Irwin (Sacred Scripture). All of this having been said, Fr. Black was faced with a major challenge. How do you begin, and how do you proceed with a basic Basilian document that will be 'moving', 'inspiring', 'simple', 'unpretentious'? not too legalistic, and entirely new?

For the first year or more after the 1967 Chapter Fr. Black thought at length about his task, prayed about it, read a lot. He read extensively the theology of religious life, the various documents of the Second Vatican Council, he studied our Constitutions and Rule as well as those of other religious congregations, he read Basilian history and jotted down copious notes. Fr. Roume's book on the early history of our Community had come out, in French, in 1965, and that was a major source of information, although it is not easy reading (the English translation did not come out until 1975). But Freddie was slow to begin writing the text itself, and in a talk he gave to the Basilian scholastics at the Seminary 4 March 1969 he mentioned some of the difficulties he encountered. It might be helpful as well as interesting to recall some of those difficulties now, 30 or more years later, in order to appreciate better our cherished basic document.

In genuine humility, which was typical of him, Fr. Black felt that he was not the man for the job, that he was lacking, as he said, 'the qualities either academic or spiritual found in the kind of people who have composed Rules in the past' - he was thinking of St. Augustine, St. Benedict, St. Francis, perhaps St. Basil too. 'The chief difficulty, however, in composing the BD, is intrinsic to the project itself. We live in a period of great change in the Church (as well as in all our other environments) and not all of us adapt to these changes in the same way or at the same pace. Yet a Rule, a Basic Document, has to be binding, if not in the sense of law imposed at least in being so right about our way of life that it would draw us, and hold us, together. It would have a structural effect.

'If we are going to talk about a Rule that is binding in this way, I think we have to consider this transformation of the environment - after all, this is the setting in which anything the Basic Document will say will have to survive. Let me sketch a few aspects of this transformation of the environment, aspects that touch this particular problem.

'In the realm of morals, people cannot expect as much support "from the outside" as used to be the case. The uniform penances of the Church, the order of the day, many rules, regulations, conditions of life which older Basilians thought essential to the Basilian spirit, are simply not there to guide us any more. Our penance and regularity must come from other sources.

'Here is another stab at understanding what is going on in this transformation (of the environment). Our Community has grown up in a period of Church history characterized by efforts to clarify and synthesize structure - a necessary element, and not to be escaped or avoided. But other elements now seem important as we try to understand what we are doing. Take for example the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917, a great landmark in understanding the law of the Church. But canonists now seem to be occupied much more with what the law ought to be than with what it is. Our constitutional history for over a century consisted in an effort to conform our constitution to Roman norms for religious institutes. There are other examples: the development of Vatican diplomacy, now somewhat questioned (as tending too much to preserve the status quo); Missions seen as organizations maintained; Liturgy--with all the work in understanding the structure of the liturgy over the past 100 years...

'As I have mentioned above, not all of us adapt to these changes in the same way or at the same pace. There are Basilians who would like to have a house living completely by the old Rule. But you cannot escape change. We might even say that change has become a part of the environment, a condition of life. We see continuing adaptation and education as part of a great many occupations and professions, and perhaps also of our own.

'There is one more difficulty to mention here. As we turn (in our different ways) from understanding religious life through understanding our corporate structure, we are thrown back on individual insights, and these when they are expressed tend to become a kind of linguistic shorthand with validity only for those who share the same insights. To other people these expressions look like clichés: they refer to without conveying the insights they are meant to express. What are swans to one group are geese to others; but their swans are also geese in other eyes.

'The difficulty is that language used for anything more than practical or technical purposes cries out to be universally understood; it gets its meaning from all its relationships. If an expression seems like a cliché it has to be treated as a cliché.

'Maybe it is a good thing for language that we can no longer depend on the old models, that traditions of devotional and even theological language can no longer support our discourse. But it does make things difficult just at this moment when it is almost impossible to find any linguistic model, old or new, that can be used with confidence in writing about religious matters.'

As I mentioned earlier, these remarks were made in a talk that Fr. Black gave to the seminarians in March 1969. A few weeks later, July 24, 1969, he wrote to his brother, Paul, a layman in Windsor, to tell him why he had not written earlier, and some of his remarks in this letter are revealing. 'I decided about six weeks ago to start writing something, just to get myself off the hook. I have tried to stay clear, as much as possible, of books, notes, etc.; I try to get an idea, then see if it is really true; then I try to write as simply as possible avoiding technical or theological language and old or new clichés. It is immensely difficult. What I write is a few sentences at a time, trying not to waffle or repeat, sticking to what is important - keeping in mind the way this kind of thing will be used and some of the questions it might be expected to answer. But it is so different from writing criticism, or from teaching, or from putting something together from either secondary or primary sources. I have to be the source myself, except - and it is a very big exception - there are a number of places where one can go to the gospel. But even there you have to be careful to mean what you say, and not to pull in texts to verify points developed from less authoritative premises. - Anyway, it is almost a miracle to report that this is working; I actually have a good deal written, a sentence or two a day, like squeezing a potato for its moisture. I haven't shown it to anybody yet; I am almost afraid to. But I think it is the best I can do... Even when I say the 'best I can do' I feel I am claiming too much: it is really more of an answer to prayer than my own work...'

By August 1969 Freddie had a first draft of the first part of the text ready for a meeting with his committee. He had it typed up into a small booklet form of 53 pages which he entitled The Basilian Way of Life - A Preliminary Version of the Basic Document called for by the General Chapter of 1967. It was distributed later that Fall to all Basilian houses, accompanied with a covering letter from the superior general, Fr. Wey, who asked the confreres to read it, discuss it in Community and send in suggestions for revision or correction. A fair number of letters from individual confreres came back to Fr. Black in the course of the next few months, and almost every local house, after holding a series of meetings to discuss the document, sent in their report. All of these submissions Freddie acknowledged with great care, writing in some cases letters of 8, 9, or 10 pages in his own fine handwriting.

In late December 1969 Fr. Black gave a spiritual conference to the Ursuline Sisters of Chatham, Ontario, in which he touched on a few of the problems he had encountered in writing the document. Like his talk to the seminarians, some of these reflections are very revealing as to the genesis of the basic document. He said: 'I thought at first I could break it up into small pieces (like programmed learning) and then put these together. But the theology of religious life is not that tidy. Even the (Vatican) Council documents (do not give a full and satisfying treatment). Then there is the enormous problem of division in the (Basilian) Community. Many different kinds of divisions. Some people wanted a document to inspire them; others one that would separate the sheep from the goats...One basic principle was that theological or juridical completeness is not wanted - is actually undesirable in a Rule.' Again Fr. Black returned to the problem of language, but this time he is even more specific.

'The difficulty with language is that it doesn't mean what you want it to mean; it carries all the weight of meaning that can be taken from it. It sometimes carries more weight than the author has in mind, sometimes less. The older theological language lived in a fairly tidy world of its own. Its relationships to technical theological literature, often in a different language, Latin, or French for example, were clearly understood. It is not by our choice that we live in a totally different linguistic world today.' Here he proposed a list of what he called 'bad or dangerous words' 'These are not really 'bad' words; but they have become very poor tools; they no longer serve.' What are some of these bad or dangerous words according to Fr. Black? - 'world' 'outside world' 'perfection' 'works of perfection' 'seeking perfection' 'striving after perfection' 'in order to develop in them a sense of responsibility' 'spiritual life' 'spiritual anything' 'soul' 'mortification' 'evangelical' (for gospel) 'ascetical life' 'sanctification'(for holiness) 'foreign missions' - 'The trouble is that if you use a word with a limited meaning it has less force: it becomes just a name (like 'the Holy Ghost') - or it comes to have no meaning (like 'St. Joseph her most chaste spouse').

'That is one end of the spectrum. I have the same difficulty with modern sociological or theological terms. They become clichés - they stand for ideas that have appealed to the people who use these terms, but they don't really carry the meaning wished upon them. A few examples: 'Eschatalogical' 'celibacy as a witness to the Parousia' 'our witness to poverty' 'witness in general - is it showing off?' It could be a much longer list. Not that these ideas can be neglected, but they have to be thoroughly digested, adapted, and applied to the work at hand before they can be usefully expressed in a practical document.'

The correspondence generated by the original wording of The Basilian Way of Life makes for fascinating reading. I have chosen one exchange of letters between Fr. Frank Firth and Fr. Black because of the light it sheds on what it means to be a Basilian. It refers to the section in the basic document bearing the subtitle VOCATION TO THE BASILIAN LIFE. Here is the text as Fr. Black first worded it:

Drawn by the Providence of God to join the Community in its work, a man becomes a Basilian when he is called by the Church to add to his baptismal consecration a further gift of himself, and all that he can do for his whole life, to the service of God in this community. He does this by taking the traditional vows of religious life, the vows of obedience, celibacy, and common life. (page 6)

Our gift of ourselves, to be worthwhile, must be a free gift, and this freedom ought to apply not only to the way we make our offering, and continue to make it, but also to what each of us offers in himself: we give all our tastes and interests, all that we can do and understand, all that we can make of the talents God has entrusted to us. Let us remember, though, that this personal freedom is something for us to give, not to take. (page 7)

Fr. Firth's comments: 'Dear Freddie and Co. Thanks for all your work on the basic document. Generally I find it swell, however here are a few suggestions for revision: On page 6 something I consider a doctrinal boo-boo. Our dedication to God in religion should not be considered as something added to or in addition to one's baptismal consecration, rather it is an expression and development of the same consecration. At baptism one is born into a new life which is expected to grow and develop. By consecrating oneself to God in religious life one opens up a special opportunity for this development and such consecration is itself a manifestation and feature of one's Christian life. So: instead of 'to add to his baptismal consecration a further gift of himself' you should read something like this: to express and develop his baptismal consecration in a special way by dedicating himself...' (letter Firth to Black 22 January 1970).

Freddie made a gracious reply on March 19, 1970, but begging to differ somewhat with Frankie's use of words: 'I agree of course with the theological point you are making, but in using the word 'dedication' in both your critique and your emendation, I think you are getting away from 'giving' in the sense I had in mind, the sense corresponding to 'mancipaverunt' in the text from Perfectae Caritatis #5 "mancipaverunt" from "mancipo" meaning 'I give over, make over, sign over, deliver up' In this sense more is given than is given in baptism; all the baptized do not 'sign over' or 'deliver up' their whole lives to God... The problem may be in speaking of 'a further gift'. What would you think of 'a new gift'? It is difficult to find non-theological language that will not be open to quite valid theological criticism.' Fr. Black may have thought that that was the end of his correspondence with Fr. Firth. But, surprise! another letter arrived from St. Joseph's College, Edmonton, dated June 24, 1970, twice as long as the first one. A few excerpts seem in order here:

'Dear Fred, ... Now that you have pointed out this sentence in the council document (mancipaverunt), it is more clear than ever that our gift to God in taking vows is not some further gift or some new gift added to our baptismal gift of self, but a fuller and more generous giving of one's life to God, a life which had already been signed over to him and was destined to belong completely to him anyway. By undertaking religious life we undertake to cut ourselves off from certain impediments and so to seek the same goal with a new vigour. So to keep the word 'gift' in there is wonderful, but to speak of adding a new or further gift is damnable. It is the same gift of self which is given more promptly, generously and completely in the religious life... I am convinced that your wording about adding a new or further gift would indicate that the religious considered the dedication or consecration of self to God in baptism and in the Christian life something rather small and imperfect, and that he, in becoming a religious, brought to God something really complete and worthwhile. On the contrary, the religious values and appreciates so deeply what it is to be a Christian, how noble a calling it is, what generosity to God it implies and demands, that he voluntarily cuts away what might perhaps be a good means to this end, but which, in view of our human weakness, can more easily become an impediment to complete belonging to God.'

What was originally the section on VOCATION TO THE BASILIAN LIFE on pages 6 & 7 of the small booklet became numbers 6, 7, 8 in the 2002 edition of The Basilian Way of Life under the title THE CALL OF CHRIST. The new wording is something we could easily take for granted were it not for the insights and persistence of both Frs. Firth and Black.

It took until 1972 to complete the 'further sections' Fr. Black spoke of and which dealt with more legal matters such as Structure, Government, Formation, etc. But even then the work was far from completion. The General Chapters of 1973 and 1977 devoted considerable attention to discussing and revising the document, so that, as Fr. Bud Paré wrote in the preface to the 1983 edition, ( the version approved by Rome), it was 'a truly Basilian project'. Fr. Paré added, quite rightly, 'Very special mention must be given to Fr. F.A. Black who intelligently, patiently and kindly shepherded this basic text through its various revisions while ensuring that it retained the spiritual verve and evangelical simplicity of his original work.'

The official approval in 1983 of our basic document did not mean that The Basilian Way of Life was to be carved in stone, as it were, and henceforth be unalterable. The whole process of renewal went on, and our Community continued to change. It declined in numbers, for one thing, and the average age of the members increased. Some changes in government and representation at Chapters became inevitable, hence certain modifications in the wording of the text, most of them of a constitutional or legal nature. By 2002 we were able to print the present version, and although no mention is made of the fact, the last two Chapters, 2001 and 2002, made reference in the course of the discussions to the importance of the basic document in our Community and how we could and should incorporate its teaching and spirit into our daily lives as Basilians.

Part II

Where our Basilian Way of Life has come from

The secular priests in the Ardèche who were to form themselves into the Association of Priests of Saint Basil in 1822 lived according to the spirit of a simple rule given them in 1802 by Fr. Léorat Picancel, the vicar general of the diocese at the time and pastor of Notre Dame parish in Annonay. (He himself was not a part of the Association.) It is referred to in our history as the Rule of Picancel. It made no pretence at legislating for a religious congregation. It was simply a brief set of guidelines, 16 articles in all, much shorter than Fr. Black's original booklet, designed to help secular priests live in common as they carried out a particular apostolate. The preamble read as follows:

"Since the Director of the College of Annonay and his collaborators are all priests or aspirants to the priesthood, it is essential that they lead a truly ecclesiastical life in every way, that is to say, always usefully occupied and entirely edifying.

"Without forming a congregation or a particular group, the spirit of their vocation demands that, since they are all members of the clergy, living under the same roof and at the same table, they follow a way of life in which work follows prayer, prayer follows work and in which all their time is occupied in a way which is in conformity with the holiness of their state. This is all the more necessary inasmuch as they are called to form the students confided to them more in virtue than in knowledge; and the most effective way to succeed in doing this is to lead a regular and pious life".

(taken from A History of the Congregation of St. Basil to 1864 by Charles Roume, C.S.B., English translation, p.150.)

This simple rule took for granted that the priests were men of prayer (daily Eucharist, breviary, private devotions), that they were familiar with the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), and the writings of the Frs. of the Church. It served as a spiritual guide in our Community for many years, although some of the first Basilians thought it was inadequate and should be expanded. Fr. Julien Tracol and three other confreres among our founders got permission to follow a stricter, more demanding rule, something closer to that of recognized religious congregations. This little group was given a spiritual director, Fr. Augustin Payan, who was sympathetic towards their desire to live by a stricter rule, but who was not convinced of the necessity for it. He and the other five founders were reluctant to get too many precise rules down in writing. They preferred the spirit of the rule over the letter. However, to be a recognized Association they were obliged to draw up in writing a set of Constitutions to satisfy the authorities in Rome and the local bishop in Viviers, something they managed to do because the newly-formed Association received the Decree of Praise in September 1837. Unfortunately the text of those first Constitutions got lost, and the new superior general, Fr. Pierre Tourvieille, who succeeded Fr. Joseph Lapierre (+16 August 1838) was loath to write a new set of Constitutions. He had strong ideas on how Basilians were to live and how new recruits would become members of the Association, but he did not care to commit them to writing. He preferred a loose organization to one that was overly structured; for example, he was not in favour of a novitiate 'per se'. He thought an aspirant to the Association of St. Basil should be invited to don the soutane and live with a local community, sharing the work of teaching and supervision, following the daily schedule of the house for prayer, meals, recreation, etc. and reporting every so often to one of the priests in the house for spiritual direction. If after four or five years he still wanted to continue, he could be invited to make certain promises, that is, to make a more formal commitment. Philosophy and theology would be offered by competent priests in the local house and holy orders conferred in due time. Curiously, 100 years later, Fr. Henry Carr was pretty much of that same mind. At the General Chapter of 1960 in Toronto he spoke to that effect: no novitiate, no scholasticate, simply training on the spot - 'put a cassock on the young man and see how he likes the life, and if the confreres like him.' Fr. Carr knew that would be contrary to Canon Law, but he felt that Canon Law was intended in the main for big, unwieldy congregations, not for small Communities (presumable like ours) where everybody knew everybody else and lived together in a friendly family-like sort of way.

Fr. Tourvieille was criticized in his day by those who wanted more structure in the Community. During his years as superior general, 1838-1859, young people drifted into the Community and drifted out. Growth in numbers was very slow. Ten priests launched the Association in 1822 and by the time Fr. Patrick Molony set out for Toronto in 1850 the Community had barely doubled in size. Fr. Tourvieille did consent however to the profession of vows in 1852, but he did so with the understanding that their poverty, chastity and obedience were to be a sanction of what the confreres were living already. A fourth vow was added: stability.

It was Fr. Julien Actorie who led the campaign for a canonical novitiate and a properly organized scholasticate. He was to succeed Fr. Tourvieille as superior general in 1859, at which time he set about to draw up a new set of Constitutions, being careful to consult all the confreres before submitting the new text to Rome. This resulted in the Decree of Approbation dated 11 September 1863. From this date on the Basilians honestly thought of themselves as an approved religious congregation. However, it was not quite that simple. Rome approved of the good work they were doing, but could not accept their form of poverty as a religious vow. It was a mitigated or modified vow of poverty, which meant that the members had a right to the radical ownership of their few possessions as well as the use and usufruct of the same, and they could receive a modest salary and use it as they saw fit, but they could not accumulate any money from one year to the next. Any surplus had to be given away, usually to help educate boys from poor families. In practice the early Basilians led a quite simple life, at once frugal and ascetic.

But the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in Rome pointed out from time to time that if the Basilians wanted to be declared a religious congregation in the canonical sense they would have to take the canonical vow of poverty. The Roman authorities also encouraged the Community to limit the work of teaching and supervision demanded of the unordained members so that they could devote more time to the study of theology. So long as these two areas failed to meet the norms for religious, the Basilian Constitutions could not receive definitive approval, and the Community would be a 'pia sodalitas' a pious sodality, not a religious congregation. This state of affairs was not generally known; most Basilians thought of themselves as religious. When Fr. Francis Forster made a careful study of the new Code of Canon Law after 1917, and of the canonical status of the Basilian Community, he made it his mission to bring the Basilian Constitutions into line with what Roman law required. He became the superior general of the Basilians in America in 1922 and succeeded in persuading his confreres in America, most of them, that they should adopt the canonical vow of poverty. With a mandate from the General Chapter of 1928 he also began working on a revision of the General Rule, helped by Fr. Michael V. Kelly. Fr. Forster died tragically in 1929; his successor, Fr. Henry Carr, achieved definitive approval of the Constitutions in 1938. As for the work of the Rule, it continued, thanks to the efforts of Frs. Vincent L. Kennedy and Terence P. McLaughlin who had it ready for approval by the General Chapter of 1942.

In 1961, one year before the opening of the Second Vatican Council, the Basilian General Council appointed a new committee to adapt the Rule to modern conditions, this on the invitation of the Sacred Congregation of Religious in Rome. The committee worked long and hard, only to find that by the time they presented their updated version to the Community the winds of change were blowing around the globe in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Nothing short of an entirely new document would satisfy the capitulants of the General Chapter of 1967. Enter Fr. Fred Black and the creative process of generating The Basilian Way of Life.

Part III

Living the Basilian Way of Life

How do we live The Basilian Way of Life? Not an easy question to answer. Short of something flagrant or scandalous, who of us is commissioned to pass judgment on how we live our Basilian life, or to point out who is living it and who is not? It should not surprise us, however, given our particular history, that we can discern certain tendencies in our Basilian Community. The first tendency has to do with living by more strict or less strict rules. A few of our founders leaned in favour of rules stricter than those written in the Rule of Picancel. They wanted certain practices such as devotions, fasting, mortifications spelled out in greater detail. The other founding Frs. were satisfied with the guidelines offered them in the same Rule because they saw it as a simple invitation to live by the Gospel and to be faithful to their priestly commitments. It seems not exaggerated to say that these two tendencies, 'mutatis mutandis', have continued through the almost two centuries of our Basilian history. The founders were somehow able to reconcile their differences. Do we do as well?

Another tendency has to do with how we live the vow of poverty. There is no doubt that our forebears, although not destitute, were content with little. Fr. Julien Actorie summed it up well in the dictum: 'Le nécessaire, toujours; le suffisant, habituellement; le superflu, jamais.' (What is necessary, always; what is sufficient, usually; what is superfluous, never.) They lived the modified or mitigated vow of poverty because they felt that gave them a closer affinity with the secular clergy, from which they had sprung, and gave them as well a closer relationship with the students in the minor seminaries where they taught and who would constitute the clergy of the dioceses where they worked.

When our Community separated into two branches in 1922, the Basilians in America, most of them, agreed to profess the canonical vow of poverty. By it they retained ownership of property, but permission was required for the use of it. The things required for living were supplied by the Community and held in common. A difficulty arose concerning the question of permission. It was generally believed among Basilians for some 25 or 30 years after 1922 that if you had permission for something it was all right to have it. What this mentality did not take into account was the effect a variety of permissions obtained could have on the common life. Naturally it led to a variety of life-styles which caused some confreres and even some lay people to wonder who was living the canonical vow of poverty and who was not. The influence of the modified vow has continued to a greater or less degree right down to our own day.

While it is true that we are not called to pass judgment on one another, it is also true that we must love one another as Jesus loves us. We are never free to sin against fraternal charity: 'Love one another as I have loved you' Jesus said to his disciples. Will we always live up to that ideal? alas, no. We all falter at one time or another. We need God's grace day by day, moment by moment, to repent and try to do better. The call 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect' has never been revoked. It extends to all baptized people, as Fr. Firth observed, but, as he also so correctly added, 'the religious (man) values and appreciates so deeply what it is to be Christian, how noble a calling it is, what generosity to God it implies and demands, that he voluntarily cuts away what might perhaps be a good means to this end, but which, in view of our human weakness, can more easily become an impediment to complete belonging to God.' (Letter Firth to Black, 24 June 1970).

There is no doubt that The Basilian Way of Life calls us to a noble ideal which each one has to pursue. In the final analysis, it is God who will judge just how well we have succeeded in living our Basilian way of life, and we know that God's judgment is just, true, and merciful.

Conference for the Basilian Associates Retreat

Strawberry Island, July 2003

Kevin J. Kirley, CSB