Rationale: Several Companions have expressed concerns that the current process for professing Life Vows is overly simple and essentially automatic. This issue is emerging in part due to two Life Professed Companions leaving the community in the last few years. The current language reads: “To be permitted to profess Life Vows, the Companion must make written application to the Servant Leader who will present the request to all Life Professed Companions. The Life Professed Companions will vote to decide if the Companion may take Life Vows. A simple majority of the Companions voting is required to approve the Companion’s request to profess Life Vows” (Precepts, III). (You will note the text actually reads Companions instead of Life Professed Companions, but that was an error of omission in the current edition of the Founding Document. This voting has always been done by the Life Professed in our community as in other communities.)
To address this concern, a structured three-step discernment process is proposed to replace this current language:
Proposed Language:
1. The individual seeking to profess Life Vows must submit a written request to the Servant Guardian, including their motivation for doing so.
2. The applicant will then engage in a discernment process with a designated group of three Life Professed Companions: The Servant Guardian, one Companion selected by the applicant, and one Companion appointed by the Servant Guardian. This discernment process shall last a minimum of 60 days and will conclude only when all members of the group reach a mutual agreement.
3. If the discernment group concludes that the decision for Life Profession is well-founded and guided by the Spirit, then: (a) the findings of the discernment group shall be communicated to all Life Professed Companions, and (b) a vote shall be conducted among all Companions who have professed Life Vows to determine whether to approve or deny the applicant’s request to profess Life Vows.
Question: Does this language adequately address the concern?
Reminder: ALL COMPANIONS REGARDLESS OF VOW STATUS may blog and provide feedback on this and all other issues.
Deadline: Please provide any feedback you may have on this proposed language, even if your only feedback is that it is acceptable as written. Blogging on this topic will conclude on Saturday, February 15 at 10 pm EST, unless an extension is clearly necessary.
Thanks for a wonderful exchange of ideas! Overall, there seems to be broad agreement on enhancing discernment but differing views on how much structure should be added.
Key points noted:
• Need for Deeper Discernment: Many agree that the current process is too automatic and lacks depth. Suggestions include adding clearer voting options (e.g., “not yet”), involving Life Professed members in discernment, or requiring candidates to write a letter expressing their commitment.
• Personal Responsibility & Community Support: Emphasis is placed on mutual accountability, commitment to ongoing discernment, and supporting each other in vocation. There is recognition that no system can guarantee lifelong commitment.
• Extended Formation Periods: Some suggest lengthening the juniorate or adding formal discernment steps before Life Vows, while others argue this would not prevent departures and may complicate the journey unnecessarily.
• Handling Departures: The abrupt nature of recent exits is a concern. A proposed solution is requiring departing members to engage in a discernment process before leaving, though enforcing this would be challenging.
• Concerns About Reactionary Changes: Some believe modifying the process solely due to recent departures is misguided, as those individuals would likely left despite any change we might make.
Overall, there is broad agreement on the need to enhance discernment, but opinions vary or are vague on how much additional structure should be introduced. While the discussion has generated valuable insights, affirmed the importance of a more intentional process, and provided great ideas for future discussions, it raises the question of whether these ideas add clarity to the original proposed language and a path forward or not? The core issue at hand is the proposed language changes to the Founding Document.
Balance was the rationale for having 3 Companions involved in the discernment, giving the Companion requesting Life Vows input into who is involved in the discernment process. Besides, three is a powerful number in a discernment group.) Also, the length of time of 60 days is in line with the process in other communities. Some communities have 30-day retreats involved. Some communities have a mini-novitiate repeated. Virtually every community I know of has a retreat involved with a spiritual director. It’s not meant to be hurdles that need to be cleared but as a sacred time set apart to really consider a lifetime commitment.
As we reflect on the conversation, it would be helpful to consider whether anyone wants to propose specific changes to the language of the original proposal to ensure clarity, balance, and practicality in implementation.
I think it is a good place to start and we can reassess down the road if something egregious arises with the process. Here are some thoughts…
Here are some thoughts on the actual wording.
I wonder if the first clause might be written, “1. The individual seeking to profess Life Vows must submit a written request to the Servant Guardian, including their motivation for doing so, no less than three/four/six months prior to the opening of the upcoming General Assembly.” I’m thinking of future years where someone may be down to the wire right at 60 days before GA and, let us be honest, it takes a moment to get a discernment group together and working and if someone applies right at the 60 day wire, it makes a mess of things.
I’m also wondering what is the structure of those 60 days? Is it a bi-weekly meeting? Is it a meeting at the start and end of 60 days? Are there sets of questions to be answered? Our companions in discernment have seed questions for their conversations and I wonder if those might be helpful.
Also, when it says “when all members of the group reach a mutual agreement.”, is that all four companions or is it the three in discernment? I suspect we might want to call them companions in discernment or the listening companions? If the three don’t agree with the one applying, I would assume there wouldn’t be much of a mutual agreement amongst the four.
Now for other things:
I wonder if the year leading to life profession might turn back toward a formation year (a reason to extend the juniorate) such that the foundation program director meets with them over a book or study just to consider the call to life profession in a community. Or maybe it remains three years and each year the whole of the juniorate takes up a topic? It might be nice because companions would move from the intimacy of novitiate to the wider body of the community while still maintaining formation.
I don’t have an answer, but I don’t think there’s anything too egregious to be taken up by any of us in this work at the stage of the juniorate or life professed. We remain, after all, by choice and whatever we take up should be harmonious to the call of the vowed religious at any time such that we see them not as hoops, but the work of the contemplative in action.
I say we go with this or slightly amended wording and see how it goes. Perhaps we allow the Servant Guardian and Foundation Director to plan content of the juniorate or maybe we add an additional topic for that discussion to this series of bloggings.
I agree with Bro Aidan Daniel’s statement. In my previous community, it was seriously considered to increase the junior are from three to five years. Those in the junior are at that time were strongly against it, perceiving life profession as a coveted prize, not an accomplishment in a deepening spiritual life.
Regardless of how well you raise them, life will present challenges and allurement too hard to resist, even for the strongest. There is no perfect, flawless method. We must leave space for personal choice, no matter how hurtful. When one leaves, despite our emotional response, we should be asking: “What is the lesson in this for me? How is the Spirit nurturing me and the community in this?”
We walk the Journey together. Some will trip and others fall. Some might leave us and follow a different path. But our destiny, our goal, is total union with the All Holy, and sentient beings who also participate in the ongoing dance of Life.
This issue was in dialogue in the community before either Phillip or Liam left. I think their leaving only highlighted the issue. I would agree with Brother Andrew Aelred: if this is the only reason we’re doing this, it would be the wrong grounding, but I do not believe that to be the case. I do agree that our process currently is rather “automatic” and lacks any significant discernment. Also, I think the “no” vote is often meant to be understood, as “not yet” or “not right now.” However, we could certainly add that as a voting option. I like that as it’s more clear.
I’m certainly not married to any particular approach. That said, I firmly believe there needs to be a more serious discernment process for professing Life Vows than there is currently. I don’t think it will ever prevent people leaving, nothing will. However, that’s not the point. The point would be to discern, examine the motivation, explore the meaning of the act in the life of the Companion and the community — not as a “hoop” or a “requirement” but as an opportunity for exploring the depth, the grace, the meaning, the growth attached to the profession of Life Vows.
I don’t think requiring/asking/expecting people to go through formal discernment before leaving will work in all cases either. If people leave without warning and won’t even discuss it after the fact, I don’t think they would commit to doing it in advance. I like the idea, but am not sure it would work.
Brother Robert Julian mentioned extending the time before being able to profess Life Vows. That has some merit. We also need to be aware that only Life Professed Companions can function in leadership or as corporation officers. So, there is a balance there to also be weighed.
We’ve discussed a “juniorate” off and on for several years. Many communities have that. Historically, it was still attached to the formation program/novitiate in that it was a period of ongoing study and growth. I actually loved mine. However, that might also be viewed as a “hoop” or “legalistic requirement” instead of a growth opportunity…
Opportunities here for the good of the whole….
Good discussion!
In my past experiences in religious life, departures NEVER go the way the Order intends let alone the on the part of the departing religious. I once had an insightful conversation with a Trappist monk. He stated that while the Order followed canonical wisdom with regard to durations for each segment of formation (six to nine years in total), they found that it took approximately 18 years for a man or woman to feel one with the abbey and Order! The Spirit takes Her time!
I think that there is a balance that must be afforded to both Order and candidate in terms of expectation on the part of both Order and candidate. Sometimes a community can be slip-shot and casual with regard to each segment of formation that then adds to an uncommitted attitude with a candidate. “Testing” one’s vocation comes with the daily life of the community, faithfulness to prayer, compassionate service for those most in need are all part of traditional discernment and can be healthy indicators in the mutual work of discernment, initial and on-going.
There are certainly no guarantees for any vocation, we can only and ought to be vigilant for each other’s vocation. It is a personal responsibility for each to not only be good example but also to fraternally correct when we observe something awry. Gospel perfection is a journey of a lifetime. Each vocation, no matter how young or senior in the community is a precious gift that enriches us all and calls us all to deeper, more spirited living of what God has given to us so freely and abundantly!
I might suggest language that emphasizes candidate responsibility and intention rather than mere approval or denial but commitment on the part of the Life Professed be as Companions in the candidate’s intention.
Dear Companions, I find myself deeply grateful for this corporate wisdom conveyed by so many individuals. As I read and contemplate, I agree that we must try to find a way to express our intentions and more deeply explore the discernment needed to strengthen our commitments. Process should follow that endeavor, not lead it.
Many thanks,
Br. Robert Julian
I find myself in a number of perspectives on this without a totally clear answer.
I feel Bro. George’s and Bro. Francisco’s perspectives are enlightening. If we are doing this in response to recent departures, I feel that they probably would have “passed through the hoops” nonetheless. Both received good foundations, both lived a joyous life in community, but life pressed in hard enough that negligence to community set in faster than could be seen or discerned. So, if we are considering this option as a reaction to the recent departures, I think the effort is founded on the wrong ground.
However, I found postulancy and novitiate very enriching and the “juniorate” years growth-filled as I learned even more about living alongside this quirky crew of contemplative junkies. I would say that when it came time for Life Profession I found myself standing there thinking, “Well, this came quickly and suddenly! Shouldn’t I be feeling something more in this moment?” Perhaps, given that 60 day out pause for reflection, even if it was just with the Servant Guardian, I would have felt that I was passing through a threshold more than just moving along one of those airport escalator walkways. Perhaps, to strike a balance, it is the Servant Guardian and one other Life Professed, or the Servant Guardian and the Foundation Director who gather with the soon to Life Profess. Or, perhaps the person applying for Life Profession writes a letter to the whole of the Life Professed applying for Life Profession and we take that in and weight it when considering the vote.
Lastly, perhaps an addition to what is presented above might be in order. When we do discernment in our diocese we don’t just have yes and no, we also have “not right now.” Perhaps, if we move forward with the model above, we could add provisions for the Life Professed voting that the person should spend another year in annual vows or enter into extended discernment with the Servant Guardian. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I do feel the need for some sort of threshold of commitment that is a signifier of the severity of the occasion.
Hello, my dear and beloved brothers and sisters.
Regarding the suggestion presented, I see no need for any changes. In my opinion, our process is very adequate and represents exactly who we are. We have all gone through the stages set out in the Founding Document and we are all here, fair and steadfast in our journey. It is worth noting that in the past we even dispensed with the postulancy and received some candidates directly into the novitiate.
For me, creating new stages is making the journey more difficult, just as other denominations do.
On the other hand, creating these new stages will in no way prevent some of our brothers from leaving us in the future to follow other paths, and this is very natural.
Therefore, my opinion is that we continue exactly as we are at the moment.
A fraternal hug to all.
Bro. Francisco
I have more of a question. Would this new procedure have changed anything regarding the 2 life professed members that left? I have no doubt that both of them would have passed this proposed procedure without a problem. So, where would that leave the Order with regards to losing Life Professed members?
Perhaps we could make sure that those entering Life Profession agree to go through a discernment process with the SG and 2 other LP members before leaving. Of course there is no way to ensure that they will honor it but at least there is a clear expectation for it. One that they would have agreed to before hand.
Speaking for myself it is not as concerning that 2 LP members left but rather the abrupt nature, lack of discernment, and communication with the rest of the Order.
I’m not well versed on how other Orders have their process set up. I know of the Cleveland Diocesan program. Perhaps some could share their knowledge/experience.
This is a good idea, though more steps may be needed as well. For example, it seems to me that the whole process from postulancy to life vows is rather quick, compared to other religious orders. What’s the rush?
But regarding this particular piece, I think the language and the suggested process is clear and useful. Discernment about life vows should have more community involvement and this is a good way to do that.
I’m not well versed on how other Orders have their process set up. I know of the Cleveland Diocesan program. Perhaps some could share their knowledge/experience.