A Synthesis for Benedictine Women’s Religious Life in the United States

Abstract

While active female Benedictine monasteries in the United States presently are in a state of decline, the needs of the Church and world indicate that the Benedictine charism is greatly needed today. This article explores some of the historical developments that have played a part in bringing active Benedictine women’s monasteries to where they are, from their immigrant foundations through societal shifts around and since the time of Vatican II. This article then provides a review of key magisterial documents relating to religious life issued since the Council. In the themes enumerated, it can be seen that the Church provides and asks of women religious an identity that is both meaningful and fully in accord with Benedictine tradition. A synthesis of U.S. Benedictine women’s experience and developments in theology is proposed, along with some possible ways forward that could put this synthesis into action.

1. Introduction

In an increasingly fractured world, the charism of Benedictine monasticism has become particularly relevant today. Indeed, it offers humanity a countercultural witness to truths many believe practically impossible in our time. Precisely because these elements are so needed, however, Benedictine monastic life provides a model and a proclamation that with the help of God, it is possible to live together peacefully in community. It is possible to remain stable and committed to the land and the people of a particular place. It is possible and worth it to make an effort to pray the liturgy beautifully, day in and day out. These goods are possible because the grace of the Holy Spirit enables the conversion of hearts; God can give life and hope even to the humbled heart. God is present and can bring joy even amid the challenges and difficulties of human community. We are not mere atoms, but members of a body meant to function as one. The world needs the wholeness of the Benedictine charism, and it would seem the time is ripe for a new flowering of Benedictine monastic life in the United States.

All this being said, the reality of women’s Benedictine life tells another story. Most active women’s communities in the U.S., affiliated with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, are gradually dying out, with lopsided demographics, generational tensions, and a breakdown in the cohesiveness in community. Although practicing a good life, most members do not wear a habit, and so are somewhat invisible to the world. They fail to attract young women to join them, who do not perceive an appealing vision strong enough to lead them. Mature communities experience tension as many within them continue to seek to come alongside and identify with the lay people of the world, but today’s Church and world seem to indicate an increasing need and desire for a distinctive religious identity marked by signs and symbols that evangelize. While at one time, active Benedictine women’s communities were havens of opportunity for young women seeking to use their skills and to serve the Church, today they tend to be seen as being too liberal by Catholic women serious enough about their faith to consider a lifelong vocation, and as too conservative by feminist women who seek to serve and lead in roles not permitted to women in Catholicism. The support of priests also matters to the cultivation of monastic vocations. When priests consider monastic communities insufficiently observant of Catholic teaching, they steer young women away from them and toward other options. This tendency has likewise affected women’s Benedictine communities as wider trends in the Church have shifted more traditional.

I would propose that it is time to consider a new synthesis for women’s monastic communities. Drawing from the gifts of renewal flowing from Vatican II, it is imperative to appropriate what is good and healthy about contemporary psychology and some parts of feminism, inasmuch as it is important to affirm women’s human dignity and agency. The Church needs the gifts of women, and their voices need to be heard. At the same time, women’s communities also need a way to be in touch with their roots such that they can live monastic life more consciously identified with the needs and theology of the Catholic Church. Communities need to understand the role of religious life within the wider ecclesial ecosystem. Moreover, they have to be able to receive the ongoing teaching of the Church in a way that is faithful and fruitful, even as they have a right and duty to contribute to developing synodal conversations. To this end, sisters must be provided both solid human formation and ample intellectual formation to assure adequate theological foundations. Moreover, ongoing study and reception of new documents issued by the Church is important. While the Church has provided clear guidance for the formation of priests and permanent deacons, and to a lesser degree lay ecclesial ministers, religious also need adequate formation for the role they play in the Church.1 These are Vatican II themes of both ressourcement and aggiornamento needed to keep the tradition fresh. If we search the documents, it becomes clear that guidance for religious women is also available.

This article will explore some of the historical developments that have played a part in bringing active Benedictine women’s monasteries to where they are, from their immigrant foundations through societal shifts around and since the time of Vatican II. Using key themes drawn from magisterial documents issued since the Council, I will suggest that the Church provides and asks of women religious an identity that is meaningful and fully in accord with Benedictine tradition. I then will propose some possible ways forward that could put this synthesis into action.

2. Historical and Social Realities

2.1. Establishment of U.S. Monasteries

Most women’s Benedictine communities founded in the United States were born in the era of nineteenth-century immigrants. Various political tensions in Europe drove communities to “be useful”, and to establish a new foothold in the U.S. Here they sprang up quickly. Despite poverty, sickness, anti-Catholic nativism, and difficulty with some bishops and abbots, these mission-driven communities soon were providing heroic service, running schools and operating health care institutions. The needs of the time made keeping cloister almost impossible, and so the American foundations forged a way different from their European foremothers. While the rhythms of monastic prayer were important, ministry to the wider community was also to be part of their story. These congregations generally adapted to the U.S. environment, where they saw decades of growth and expansion.2

Communities experienced a period of stabilization in the 1950s. Particularly in these post-war years of the baby boom, Benedictine communities swelled, and served huge classes of children. Sisters were needed to staff schools. Under pressure, many were sent to teach without having finished their own education. Eventually many sisters took night classes and summer school to complete at least a college degree. Nevertheless, while they received some training for their ministerial duties, and perhaps some classes on Scripture, most never had the opportunity to receive a high-quality intellectual foundation in theology and the meaning of the monastic life.3

On the surface, communities appeared strong. Community customaries dictated regimented daily practices that ensured a common, distinctive religious life.4 During this period, however, the Church at large was struggling to come to grips with the changes of the modern world, and how to interact with it. For some time, monastic life, like the Church at large, held a mostly isolationist stance. For example, sisters were not to interact with “seculars” or to watch the news.5 In some ways, monastic practices reflected an ossified brittle crust; spiritually, while rigorous, many practices had become distorted or disconnected from their life-giving roots. Communities struggled with questions of authority, obedience, and personal responsibility, and some ran with a “stern-minded” belief that to find favor with the God, one must destroy all that is human”.6 Elders asked to recount life in this period tend remember it with some chagrin, even while accepting that they carried on without questioning too much, as “it was a different time”.

2.2. Vatican II and Its Aftermath

Vatican II, then, brought the call to go back to the authentic roots of the tradition, with ressourcement a primary goal alongside the need to update for the times, aggiornamento. The Council brought emphasis to the universal call to holiness.7 Communities revisited and revised their customs in light of the 1965 Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life, Perfectae Caritatis. While many members left community during this era of change, others embraced the period of renewal, especially as the Vatican left open some time for experimentation. Communities studied the documents of Vatican II, and deepened exploration of their particular charism as described in the Rule of Benedict and other early monastic sources. “Convents” were renamed “Monasteries”. Liturgies we conducted in English. New music was written.

Within women’s communities, as part of updating for the current moment, sisters wrestled with the wider trends of second-wave feminism, and many communities introduced use of various kinds of inclusive language. Biblical translations were shifted as well as composed prayers, to better recognize the presence of women, but also to make the point that God is beyond gender as we usually understand it, despite the gendered references that Scripture and Tradition provide. The Conference of American Benedictine Prioresses produced several documents supporting their position, including their 1984 “Toward Full Discipleship: An Interim Statement on the Role of Benedictine Women in Church and Society”.8

While this document was never fully ratified by all the prioresses and so remained “interim”, it provides an explanation for the thinking of a number of communities during this time. Clearly it has continued to influence the life and practice of most active Benedictine women’s communities in the United States. The writers express a perception that some Church disciplines “operate on the assumption that women’s gender somehow inhibits the power of baptism”, and they argue that being “all one in Christ” should negate role restrictions based on sexual difference.9 They note that “reading Scripture naively can become the occasion for distorted consciousness about male and female identity and relationships”10 and they raise concern that contemporary theological arguments about whether priesthood can be extended to women “exaggerat[e] the importance of the physiological maleness of Jesus”.11 The writers consider historical tensions between churchmen and American Benedictine women, noting the nineteenth-century prohibition on solemn vows for early communities because papal enclosure, required for women, was impossible on the frontier; thus these women were considered “sisters” but not “nuns”.12 They also enumerate a long list of political, financial, educational, and personal physical injustices suffered by women throughout the world.13

The document is the expression of religious women who long for their gifts to be fully received by the Church, and who want to correct injustices against women wherever they happen. They long for self-determination, and intend to take steps to take it.14 Indeed, they name the double standards around enclosure for Benedictine women and men as a problem,15 they see women’s experience as a source for theology, and go so far as to suggest that “certain decrees—canon law, universal directives, exhortations, or local implementation—are to be interpreted, not as hard-and-fast dictates, but as guiding principles…”16 They recommend that feminist spirituality and theology should be “basic to Benedictine formation”.17 As events have unfolded, for some decades this approach has been a significant, largely presumed way of proceeding in U.S. women’s communities.

In light of the range of injustices described by the writers, their desires are understandable. In light of the massive changes that had recently happened in the Church, perhaps their confident tone could be expected. They consider it a prophetic stance. Vatican II’s 1965 Apostolicam Actuositatem on the apostolate of the laity had expressly affirmed that women should “participate more widely also in the various sectors of the Church’s apostolate”.18 However, it is also true that women were not granted wide access to university-level theological study until Vatican II,19 and some of the document’s proposals do not reflect a deep understanding of the theological tradition and how it develops. Unfortunately, some of the initiatives these communities took ultimately took them afield of what the Church teaches.

By the time John Paul II defined the doctrine reserving priestly ordination to men in 1994, a cultural gulf had emerged between some of these communities and the teaching authority of the Church. In some cases, ignorance of theology may have allowed problematic practices to continue, such as inclusive-language doxologies that express the heresy of Modalism. Elsewhere, decisions clearly reflected a sense of distrust and antagonism that had set in. The issue of women’s ordination was a flashpoint. In 1979, Sr. Theresa Kane, R.S.M. made waves when, as leader of the LCWR, she asked John Paul II to consider women’s ordination.20 Clearly many sisters still supported the idea even after the definition of the doctrine, which in theory takes it off the table for theological debate. When in 2001 Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister was invited to speak at the first international conference of (Women’s Ordination Worldwide n.d.), the Vatican intervened to try to prevent it, knowing that many sisters would attend, but her prioress permitted her to speak, believing the continued discussion good for the Church.21 The general understanding of the U.S. sisters was that resistance to perceived injustice, even in the Church, was to be understood as a prophetic sign. As the U.S. prioresses wrote in their 2006 statement, “Wisdom from the Tradition”,

we… dare to speak words that critique and challenge unjust structures, structures in which we ourselves participate, whether consciously or not. If anything said here is found to be graced and prophetic, it is because we, like our foremothers, aim to be faithful to the biblical covenants that structure right relationships with God and with one another.22

While overt resistance to Church teaching has in some ways settled since that time, it may be that many religious women have voted with their feet. Demographic studies show a wave of disaffiliation from the Catholic Church at large.23 This trend is widespread, however, across Christian denominations and even other faith traditions. Among Benedictines, some women moved to develop ecumenical communities with non-canonical status.24 For some, staying within the bounds of Church order is no longer important.

2.3. Developments Since Vatican II

At the same time, newer generations have come of age with less expectation that the Church should change its position on women’s ordination; newer teachings have affirmed the dignity and value of women in a way that has spoken deeply to many. John Paul II’s 1988 Mulieris Dignitatem, his 1995 Letter to Women, and the compilation of his Wednesday audience catecheses (1979–1984), Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, have shaped a new generation of Catholics. Today more emphasis is being put on the dignity of each person by virtue of baptism, and the value of charisms for the building up of the Church. Women’s leadership is promoted not with an emphasis toward ordination, but with affirmation of women’s presence and action in the many other spheres of influence in the Church, including education, health care, social ministry, and evangelization. Indeed, sisters long have served in all of these areas. Pope Francis also has made a concerted effort to appoint women to more positions of leadership within the Vatican, including within various dicasteries, the appeals court, and the secretary of state.

The last thirty years also have given rise to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992, released in English in 1994, with a revised typical edition in 1997). This resource has greatly influenced faith formation materials. The Catechism also has provided a foundation for new waves of engagement in Church life focused on evangelization. Beginning with the documents of Vatican II, succeeding popes each have emphasized evangelization as the constitutive mission of the Church. All of this affects lay engagement in Church life. Lay people now study and teach theology at all levels of professionalism. While still a somewhat new process for many, synodality is now part of Church conversation at all levels. The Church stands in a place very different from where it did right after Vatican II, and it would seem that many of the things for which sisters aspired have in fact come to be.

At issue for the future of monasticism in the United States is whether women’s monastic life has moved with the Church through these developments. In many cases it appears that after the ruling on women’s ordination, many Benedictine women “checked out” of following further developments in Church teaching very closely. While some newer sisters have gained access to theological educations, initial and ongoing formation is uneven in the area of helping sisters understand the monastic vocation within a wider ecclesiological and theological landscape. Some sisters claim to be “Benedictine first, and Catholic only secondarily”. On the other hand, those who seek to be more closely aligned with Church life often run into mistrust and misunderstanding. Wearing a distinctive habit can be seen as problematic, and standing squarely within the Catholic theological tradition is no longer a non-negotiable for many Benedictine women’s communities. There are rifts within communities, and rifts between communities and the local and universal Church. Bringing up the past sometimes triggers traumatic responses for some sisters; so many of the experiences of moving through Vatican II and the renewal period involved difficult situations begging respect for basic human dignity and integral human development. It is true that synodality now marks a new way of being Church, a way that includes listening to all as a prelude to teaching on the part of the magisterium. After so many decades of feeling unheard or disrespected by those in Church authority, Benedictine women find this approach much better aligned with their values of discussion and consultation. It is a promising moment. Still, those who have lived through these earlier eras, especially those without the benefit of significant theological study, can have a hard time trusting that the Church intends good things for them today.

Alongside these developments, newer communities of various orders have sprung up that are attracting young vocations. These tend to be communities with a very clear mission aligned with the current needs of the Church and the world. Unburdened by wounds of the decades immediately surrounding Vatican II, they have a clarity of vision and energy attractive to young women who have come of age in more recent times. While many of these communities have active apostolates, they also maintain a rigorous prayer life and shared communal practices. For many, study is a key part of initial formation; some are active in the public sphere serving as professors and holding key leadership positions. These communities enjoy the support and encouragement of priests and bishops, who regularly promote them among young people considering a religious vocation.

2.4. Two Leadership Conferences for Women Religious

While most of the communities in decline belong to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the communities that are growing now tend to belong to the Congregation of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR). Some complicated historical context is important here. An initial national conference for women religious was established by Pius XII in 1956 as the Conference of Major Superiors of Women (CMSW). However, in the wake of Vatican II, differences emerged regarding the role of the Sister Formation Conference, which had been involved in getting sisters more educated. Since Vatican II, the Sister Formation Conference had particularly emphasized education for works of justice in the modern world, focusing on more personal development and acting on one’s conscience. The superiors of the CMSW, however, advocated an approach of relative withdrawal from the world, so as to focus more on prayer and service within the Church”.25 The Vatican investigated the conflict in 1963 and ruled the Sister Formation Conference should be subsumed as a committee of the CMSW. Overwhelming desire among member communities for continued engagement with the needs of the world led to a 1971 change, and the CMSW was reconstituted as the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, returning to implementation of the initiatives of the Sister Formation Conference.26 In 1992, with the support of the Vatican, a smaller group of communities, at the time about six percent of American sisters,27 broke away to found the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious. Today U.S. women religious from active communities can belong to either or both of the two conferences for leadership. The CMSWR describes its purpose as being:

to serve the major superiors of women religious and their communities by providing mutual support in sustaining among its members the transcendent nature of religious life and the centrality of common life, common prayer, community-based apostolates, religious obedience, and the witness to consecration and poverty by a garb that is both common and simple.28

While the CMSWR is emphasizing somewhat traditional and timeless elements of religious life, today the LCWR describes its purpose and mission in relation to the needs of the world as well as the Church:

Purpose

The scope of the conference’s concerns is broad and includes:

• collaborating in Catholic church and societal efforts that influence systemic change
• studying significant trends and issues within the church and society
• utilizing our corporate voice in solidarity with people who experience any form of violence or oppression
• creating and offering resource materials on religious leadership skills.

LCWR serves as a resource to its members, as well as to members of the public seeking information on leadership for religious life.

Mission

The purpose of the Conference shall be to promote a developing understanding and living of religious life by:

• assisting its members personally and communally to carry out more collaboratively their service of leadership in order to accomplish further the mission of Christ in today’s world.
• fostering dialogue and collaboration among religious congregations within the Church and in the larger society.
• developing models for initiating and strengthening relationships with groups concerned with the needs of society, thereby maximizing the potential of the Conference for effecting change.29

The polarities between these visions of religious life are clear enough. The tension expressed is simply about how religious women are called to show care and concern for the world while also attending to the transcendent view of things and playing a particular role in the Church. What might this mean for Benedictine women’s monastic life going forward?

In the years after Vatican II, the Catholic theological world has explored themes of both ressourcement and aggiornamento. While the journal Communio (particularly its English-language version) has tended to focus on the former, the journal Concilium has focused on the latter.30 In parallel fashion, many Church documents addressing women religious have called for a certain level of continuity and communion within the larger ecclesial space, but sisters attending to justice issues have been more likely to align with those who would push for reform, even if it means going beyond current Church teaching. For most U.S. Benedictine sisters, the problem this poses is that it is hard to attract women to a life of representing the Church as sisters if the general perception is that communities are regularly in protest against it. It is an obfuscation of the mission. It may be true that churchmen have in the past sometimes treated religious women badly, and in some places continue to do so. At the same time, the Church and the world have come a long way in respect for women. At least in the U.S., women no longer have to fight to be allowed to vote or to control their own finances. In the year 2025 the Church is in a different place than it was in the 1980s and 90s. Moreover, however sinful the Church sometimes may be, it continues to hold teaching authority. Those within the Catholic Church have to find a way to be fed by and obedient to the teachings of the magisterium, while also being co-responsible for the mission of the Church.31 I would suggest it is time for U.S. Benedictine women to give another look at the documents relating to religious life, or perhaps to consider them for the first time. It is possible that the future of monastic life is to be found in a synthesis of the teachings found there and the lessons learned over recent decades of engagement with the world.

3. Beyond Polarization: Assessing Church Documents for Religious Life from a New Vantage Point

So what do the documents of the Church ask for religious life? The body of teaching is vast, but some key themes can be traced among various documents issued in the years around and since Vatican II.32 It should be noted that different kinds of Church teaching hold different levels of authority, and so can be weighted differently when considered by themselves.33 As expressions within a wider stream of teaching, however, they can reiterate, emphasize, and develop themes.

At the highest level of authority are those with conciliar or universal authority, which are binding on the whole Church. This includes canon law and the constitutions of Vatican II. Within the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canons 573–606 include norms common to all institutes of consecrated life; Canons 607–709 relate to religious institutes; and Canons 710–730 relate to secular institutes.34 A major theme found here is that religious life, as a consecration of the whole person, is a marriage and a sacrifice of continuous worship of God in love. Those who profess the evangelical counsels “[belong] to the life and holiness of the Church” and this vocation is to be “fostered and promoted by all in the Church”.35

Among the documents of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (1964) devotes Chapter 6 to Religious. Here the Church says that the consecrated person, by profession of the evangelical counsels, is “more intimately consecrated to divine service”, representing the bond of union of Christ and the Church. Joined to the Church in a special way, the spiritual life of religious, whether realized through prayer or active works, should “be devoted to the welfare of the whole Church”. Those who profess the evangelical counsels are a sign to the rest of the Church of the kingdom of God. Though not part of the hierarchical structure of the Church, religious life “undeniably belongs to its life and holiness”.36

Gaudium et Spes (1965) speaks of the Church in the world. In particular, it describes the “communitarian character” of the work of Jesus, and the call to be in solidarity with others.37 It urges respect for the dignity of the human person as the basis for relationship between the Church and the world,38 and promotes genuine personal development anchored by the safeguards of the Gospel.39 Though religious communities are not specifically named, they might find themselves reflected in the statement that “The promotion of unity belongs to the innermost nature of the Church, for she is, ‘thanks to her relationship with Christ, a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God, and the unity of the whole human race.’”40

Perfectae Caritatis, promulgated in 1965, addresses issues specific to religious communities. The document reiterates that the evangelical counsels have their origin in the teaching and example of Jesus, and they are a symbol of the heavenly kingdom. It recalls that common life emerges from the model of the early Church, as seen in Acts 4:32. Institutes are to “share in the life of the Church”, while adapting and renewing the life by a return to its sources, but also by promotion of “an adequate knowledge of the social conditions of the times … and of the needs of the Church”, so as to serve effectively.41 The document reiterates the spiritual theme of renouncing the world to live for God alone, a deepening of the consecration of baptism. Having given themselves to God via the Church, members are reminded that they are dedicated to the service of the Church.42 The document speaks of the call of both contemplative and active communities, and it declares monastic life a venerable institution to be preserved, whether restricted to worship within the walls, or undertaking an appropriate apostolate.43 Religious are called to obedience to their superiors, but superiors also are to respect their members’ human dignity and freedom of conscience. Members are to be led to “cooperate with an active and responsible obedience in undertaking new tasks and in carrying those already undertaken”; superiors “should gladly listen to their subjects and foster harmony among them for the good of the community and the Church, provided that thereby their own authority to decide and command what has to be done is not harmed”. Chapters and deliberative bodies also have their role.44 Cloister restrictions are to be adjusted if needed, with “obsolete practices suppressed”, if otherwise maintained per constitutions.45 Religious habits are presumed: “The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved”.46 Education should serve the needs of the apostolate and result in “an integrated life” for the religious.47 While some of the issues addressed no longer are at the forefront of attention in some communities, the guidance of this conciliar decree feeds into themes developed in other documents.

In 1971, Paul VI wrote the apostolic exhortation Evangelica Testificatio.48 Here he reiterates the core elements of religious life. This document serves as a reminder to religious about their core identity during the time of renewal. Whatever else might change about religious life, those serving in active apostolates also need to be strengthened by a meaningful interior life, with regular times of prayer, silence, and withdrawal from the world as well as a Eucharist-centered liturgical life.

Twenty years after the close of Vatican II, the Final Report of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod addressed the reception and misunderstandings that had emerged since the Council, clarifying that “the central and fundamental idea of the Council’s documents” is an ecclesiology of communion. The report says an ecclesiology of communion is not merely about organization or power, but it is an expression of the mystery of the Church as the Body of Christ, the key to maintaining unity within diversity.49 The document also critiques forms of aggiornamento that lead to secularization of the Church or to the Church closing in on itself. Rather, the Church is called to missionary openness.50 This document begins to shape spiritual dimensions to be maintained as religious communities.

Indeed, a number of documents build on the theme of communion, and they name religious as being given particular responsibility for cultivating a spirituality of communion. Sr. Mary Prudence Allen, R.S.M. makes the argument that the call to communion in community is the primary theme of the theology of religious life that emerged after Vatican II. Drawing on the council’s emphasis on the mystery of the Church itself being communio, she sees the renewed living of the community dimension of religious life as its key service to the other states of life.51 In 1978, the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes issued two major documents, Mutuae Relations (Directives for Mutual Relations between Bishops and Religious in the Church) and Religious and Human Promotion. Mutuae Relations addressed the theme of the communion between religious and the bishops as part of the “living organism” of the Church.52 Religious and Human Promotion spelled out a mission for religious that also addresses the style in which justice concerns might be met in a way that corresponds to the Church’s mission. In this arena, roles matter. It is particularly the role of the laity to promote justice within secular structures. While religious may teach the laity, religious actually hold a complementary role, to be “a sign and stimulant” to others with communion “at the core of every concern”, a “fundamental criterion”.53 While religious may work closely with the laity, consecrated people have a different role:

Experts in communion, religious are, therefore, called to be an ecclesial community in the Church and in the world, witnesses and architects of the plan for unity which is the crowning point of human history in God’s design….Furthermore, through the daily experience of communion of life, prayer, and apostolate—the essential and distinctive elements of their form of consecrated life [cf. Perfectae Caritatis, 15]—they are a sign of fraternal fellowship. In fact, in a world frequently very deeply divided and before their brethren in the faith, they give witness to the possibility of a community of goods, of fraternal love, of a program of life and activity which is theirs because they have accepted the call to follow more closely and more freely Christ the Lord who was sent by the Father so that, firstborn among many brothers and sisters, he might establish a new fraternal fellowship in the gift of his Spirit. From their communitarian way of living flows that form of his presence and involvement which should characterize them in the Church’s mission and which we now emphasize in view of the options concerning human promotion.54

In other words, religious both evangelize and promote the human dignity of others most authentically when they live and foster community in a style faithful to the charism of their founder. For Benedictines, living community is clearly a significant part of the charism, and so the call to be “experts in communion” should feel like a natural fit. Allen notes that the theology of religious life developed such that by 1980, religious were now “asked to serve the Church through an authentic spirituality of communion because of their privileged essential characteristic of living in common”.55

We see further development of the theme in the years following. In 1983, the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes wrote Essential Elements in the Church’s Teaching on Religious Life as Applied to Institutes Dedicated to Works of the Apostolate. It is an instruction written at the request of some bishops unsure of how to implement the new Code of Canon Law, and was sent by John Paul II to the U.S. bishops with a letter of endorsement.56 The document marks the end of the period of experimentation, and while it was received by some with gratitude, others angrily deemed it a Roman intervention without prior consultation.57 The document describes nine elements being essential to the authentic living of religious life: (1) consecration to God by public vows, (2) stable, visible form of community life, (3) corporate apostolate faithful to charism, (4) personal, communal, and liturgical prayer, (5) asceticism, (6) public witness, (7) specific relation to the Church, (8) life-long formation, and (9) government calling for religious authority based on faith.

These elements might pose a challenge to religious communities that had moved in the direction of living alone or in small groups, with no clearly distinctive sign of belonging to the Church. For Benedictines, however, these elements echo core values found in the Rule of Benedict. Some of these practices are so presumed in Benedictine houses that they hardly bear mentioning. Others might invite a thoughtful review and soul-searching assessment.

What kind of corporate apostolate do most women’s communities have today? How shared is the work? Given economic and geographic realities, are the common works of communities appropriate and vital? What might be possible if a community were to aim to have a more shared corporate work?

Regarding public witness, how visible are communities? If communities have stepped away from identifiable dress, is a return possible? Are monasteries welcoming places that invite people to visit, to share in the prayer and work of the community? Are the members spirit-filled people of joy?

Asceticism may also bear some assessment. At its core, asceticism is about spiritual training, not masochism. While many ascetic monastic practices were relaxed after Vatican II, it may be that some shared asceticism could enhance the spiritual strength of members today.

The element “specific relation to the Church” may also need some communal reflection. If religious are not clerical, and are not lay, but hold their own particular role in the Church, to foster and to be an image of communion, can today’s Benedictine women deepen their efforts to be in communion with God, with each other and with the wider Church? How might relationships with Church authorities be tended more effectively? How might trust be cultivated? Can Benedictine women say that their work is clearly part of the mission of the Church?

All of these elements are based on a fundamental union with God. As Essential Elements puts it, “Religious consecration establishes communion between religious and God, and in him, between members of the same institute. This is the basic element of unity of an institute”.58 It may be that communities need to begin by reflecting more deeply on the meaning of consecration that takes place through their public vows. Monastic profession is not merely a human promise, but the giving of one’s whole self to a mystery of relationship with God through the Church. In consecration, one is set apart for God’s service.

The theme of religious being signs of communion continues to be echoed in other documents. The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life repeats the theme in their 1994 Fraternal Life in Community: “As experts in communion, religious are, therefore, called to be an ecclesial community in the Church and in the world, witnesses and architects of the plan of unity which is the crowning point of human history in God’s design”.59 This is a high calling. At the same time, everyone in a religious community knows that common life is difficult. It can be gritty in the everyday. Besides addressing many practical concerns around creating a common life, the document notes developments in the Church’s understanding of community. It has both a spiritual element, described as “fraternity” or “fraternal communion” [“sorority” or “sororal communion”?] and the more visible element of “life in common” or “community life”, living in one’s religious house and following the same norms, sharing practices, etc.60 The document describes community life as gift, as place where we become brothers and sisters, and as the place and subject of mission.61 Ultimately, the unity of community is not simply a human work, but a work of God, a participation in Trinitarian life:

Before being a human construction, religious community is a gift of the Spirit. It is the love of God, poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, from which religious community takes its origin and is built as a true family gathered in the Lord’s name. It is therefore impossible to understand religious community unless we start from its being a gift from on high, from its being a mystery, from its being rooted in the very heart of the blessed and sanctifying Trinity, who wills it as part of the mystery of the Church, for the life of the world.62

As with teachings around sacramental marriage, when things become difficult, when sacrifice and hardship come, it is the grace of God that continues to forge unity, that can bring new life out of death. The mystery of communion is seen in both states of life.63

Indeed, as theological teaching on the vocation of religious life develops, we see that the mission to be an image of communion is not just for the good of those called to the life, but for the wider world. In 1996, in Vita Consecrata, John Paul II repeats the call to religious to accept this mission:

A great task also belongs to the consecrated life in the light of the teaching about the Church as communion, so strongly proposed by the Second Vatican Council. Consecrated persons are asked to be true experts of communion and to practice the spirituality of communion as ‘witnesses and architects of the plan for unity which is the crowning point of human history in God’s design.’ The sense of ecclesial communion, developing into a spirituality of communion, promotes a way of thinking, speaking and acting which enables the Church to grow in depth and extension. The life of communion in fact ‘becomes a sign for all the world and a compelling force that leads people to faith in Christ…. In this way communion leads to mission, and itself becomes mission’; indeed, ‘communion begets communion: in essence it is a communion that is missionary.64

By living community deeply, both within the monastery and in relationship with the larger Church, Benedictines fulfill their call as religious in service to the world. This is a mission lived, as Prudence Allen puts it, “at ‘the heart of the Church’ and not at its outmost extremities. Religious life ‘manifests the inner nature of the Christian calling.’”65 If contemporary Benedictine women would be “prophetic”, they can fulfill that mission within the Church itself, even as they may go to the margins to serve.

Five years after Vita Consecrata, in Starting Afresh from Christ, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life affirmed that the document “remains the most significant and necessary point of reference guiding the path of fidelity and renewal… It must continue to be studied, understood and put into practice”.66 It affirmed that communities should spread the spirituality of communion as part of their mission, “first of all in their internal life and then in the Church community… This is a task which requires spiritual persons interiorly shaped by God, by loving and merciful communion and by mature communities where the spirituality of communion is the rule of life”.67 Starting Afresh goes on to reiterate that religious need to be aware of the sign value of consecrated life in relation to other states of life.68 Formation and especially ongoing formation is critical; formators themselves must be well-trained.69 Religious are reminded that “It is the Spirit who instills love and gives birth to communion”, which gives rise to “a life of communion and in the service to every man and woman”. It is by returning to one’s own roots and choices in spirituality that paths are opened to the future”, beginning with “living the fullness of the theology of the evangelical counsels”, following the “model of Trinitarian life”, in conformity with the charism of the community founder. The Holy Spirit is “the soul and animator of Christian spirituality”, and the Spirit’s action “manifests itself in communion and spreads itself in mission”.70 Thus consecrated life must grow out of a deep prayer life, personal and communal, which especially privileges the Eucharist:

“My dearest ones, encounter him and contemplate him in a very special way in the Eucharist, celebrated and adored every day as source and summit of existence and apostolic action”. In the Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata, [John Paul II] called for participation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and assiduous and prolonged Eucharistic adoration daily.71

Besides staying connected to this spiritual center, communities are encouraged to learn from and to support each other.72 Religious can help cultivate “an integrated ecclesiology”, where the different vocations work together while each holding their own identity. In this space, the charisms of the religious founders are placed at the center of the Church in a way that allows all to share in them, some more closely, perhaps as oblates.73

This working together should carry over into the work of religious with priests, bishops and the magisterium of the Church; honest allegiance is needed on the part of consecrated people, but the Church also pays attention to them when determining how to address delicate front-line issues. With a conciliar style now important, the Church now “encourage[s] consecrated persons to clearly and confidently make known and to offer their own proposals for presence and work in conformity with their specific vocation”.74 Particularly in the realm of concern for the poor, those who need to be evangelized, and those who have a difficult time accepting Church teaching related to health care, religious can play a special role by living out the spirituality of communion. There is room for creativity and “charity… at the service of intelligence” as religious are attentive to the signs of the times and address root causes of need.75 In this document we see how the ecclesial landscape has shifted from earlier years. While the “teaching Church” still has its role, it is now also a “listening Church”, one that is more ready to consult its members.

In the 2008 instruction The Service of Authority and Obedience, the Church offers guidance to those in authority in religious communities as well as to members. The document notes some of the various tensions that can emerge between the desire for “self-realization” and “community projects”, between “personal well-being” and service of the common mission, and between competing visions of the charism that are “too subjective”. It is a difficult thing to balance the individual and community, authority and obedience. The document aims to reaffirm obedience and authority in religious communities, even though these are lived in different ways; always they are to image “the Lord Jesus, the obedient servant”. Authority is to serve the individuals living their own consecration; it should help build community, and it should enable shared mission.76 Certainly much of what is stated feels familiar for Benedictines; the document quotes the Rule of Benedict in multiple places, including the opening word, “Listen”.77 Like the Rule, this document speaks of the various duties of the leader in service to the community, as well as qualities needed for one in authority.78 Again expressing the changes that have happened in the Church since Vatican II, the document speaks of a “relational anthropology” being part of the spirituality of communion; it is an important part of the shared mission of the people of God, who now are seen to work in collaboration and co-responsibility. This spirituality of communion, the special call of religious, now “presents itself as the spiritual climate of the Church at the beginning of the Third Millennium”, and it is profoundly related to the Eucharist and the Church, both mysteries of communion.79

Other documents also speak to those in consecrated life. Some are specifically aimed at enclosed nuns in the contemplative life, while others address all religious.80 Annually popes have written homilies for the World Day of Consecrated Life, and messages for the World Day of Prayer for Vocations. It would be a service to religious communities to compile a complete compendium. This review should suffice, though, to make the point that the Church has spoken at length over the last 60 years on the nature and mission of consecrated life, offering guidance and important themes that should help those seeking a clear identity and mission in today’s world.

4. A Synthesis for Benedictine Women

Bringing together the history of active Benedictine women’s experience and the various magisterial teachings of the Church on consecrated life, it is possible to propose a way forward that may lead to renewal. In the spirit of Vatican II, let us look to themes of both ressourcement and aggiornamento. Going to the sources of the tradition, Benedictine scholars have done excellent work in the field of monastic studies. We know far more today about the roots of the monastic tradition than might have been the norm a century ago. While this is an important and very particular kind of ressourcement, the preceding review of documents should illustrate the fact that during these post-conciliar years, the magisterium at large also has been making a more general return to the sources of the religious life. These broader sources of the tradition include the Scriptural and theological roots of consecrated life itself, and these also need to be received as a spring of life. While it sometimes may be objected that the Benedictine vows predate the named concept of the evangelical counsels, the reality they represent is in fact rooted in the life of Christ; there is nothing about the evangelical counsels that contradicts or is not included in the Benedictine vows of stability, obedience, and conversatio morum. Magisterial documents that would derive the meaning of the consecrated life from the life of Trinity, likewise, are pointing to a deep root indeed. These theological teachings are sources for the renewal of Benedictine monasticism in our time.

Fr. Christopher Collins, S.J. suggests that a lot of the post-Vatican II decline in religious life was a result of not giving theological considerations as much attention as social issues. Communities need to go deeply into these sources. The fundamental challenge, he proposes, is Christological, the acceptance of both the human and the divine in religious life:

If we remain embedded in those realities of our human natural life and we downplay the eschatological dimension of our lives, as consecrated men and women, then there’s no point to it. In other words, if we’re not pointing to anything beyond, there’s no point to it. On the other hand, [it is also possible to] go to the other extreme if we find ourselves settled in to the ‘otherness’ of religious life and we become detached from the ordinary people around us…81

If the recent decades’ experience of many women religious has emerged out of a fundamental desire to come alongside the laity in service, that is a good motive. At the same time, the consecrated state of life also calls Benedictine women to keep in mind an eschatological orientation, the sign value of their lives for others. The call to embody communion in community is not only a personal call, but also one that has communities in relationship with the other states of life in the Church, collaborating within the Church on mission to the world. The reference point for how to do this is always Christ himself, both fully human and fully divine.82 This is a mystery of identity and mission in the Body of Christ, and community is important: “Holiness and mission pass through the community because the risen Lord makes himself present in it and through it, making it holy and sanctifying the relationships”.83 Religious are part of something much bigger than themselves.

In terms of aggiornamento, the difficult experiences of women that have been expressed in the Church also seem to have had their own impact, if not necessarily in the way some would have liked. In the Church documents we see a gradual updating for today with increased concern for the dignity of the human person, psychological development, synodal or conciliar approaches to addressing matters, promotion of women, and clarification around the particular gifts and tasks of each state of life. Women do have important roles to play in the Church, and women religious in particular have a special place. While the scope of this article does not allow for a complete unpacking of John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem, Letter to Women, or Man and Woman He Created Them,84 many women of the Church have begun to use these teachings as sources of inspiration to offer their gifts with more confidence. Those who may find gender complementarity too confining may be consoled to know that without becoming essentialist, the concept of a “feminine genius” has now also instigated theological thinking on what a “masculine genius” might be.85 Being Church means working together using the gifts of each. Justice concerns also continue to be addressed at both the grassroots and magisterial levels. Catholic Social Teaching is taught in schools and seminaries. Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, and innumerable parishes and agencies put this teaching into action in the United States and across the world. Particularly in more recent writings from Pope Francis, such as his encyclicals Laudato Si’ (2015)86 and Fratelli Tutti (2020),87 we see expression of a concern for the poor and vulnerable of the world and a call to ecological care. Living the mission of the Church means being both invited to communion and going out to the margins. Fratelli Tutti particularly names the importance of working for reconciliation, not avoiding conflicts, but working through them for peace. The magisterium is not unaware of today’s issues.

Practically speaking, this synthesis also suggests some concrete considerations for Benedictine women who would seek renewal at this time. Within communities, the call to communion may need to be re-proposed, or proposed for the first time, with the understanding that communion in a community is a gift given by God. In the spirit of the opening line of the Rule, living this kind of communion means listening and responding faithfully to the teaching of the Church, particularly that concerning religious life. It requires study and ongoing attentiveness. One must know the teaching to be able to respond out of it. This may necessitate leaders regularly presenting Church documents for thoughtful reflection. It may suggest reconsideration of mission statements to align them more closely with theological ideals of consecrated life. It may mean reviewing liturgical language, practices, and spaces to assure that they clearly express the spirit of what the Church asks. The Eucharist may need to be given greater priority. Sisters might be invited to consider the nature and meaning of their own consecration to God, and how this way of being given to God also carries with it a mission. The call to communion may warrant efforts at reconciliation, or perhaps submitting personal projects to larger communal goals. Communities may reconsider the sign value of distinctive dress, and the message sent to the world by their appearance. While incarnating the love of God to others in community and to those served continues to be important, communities may want to consider what elements of their lives also nurture awareness of the transcendent dimension of life. Beauty evangelizes. Certainly the documents themselves can be tools for further self-assessment, both for women’s communities and also for men’s monasteries in need of renewal.

In the wider ecclesial landscape, the synthesis also suggests that Benedictine women’s communities contribute to the life of the Church when they speak of their experience. They further the mission of the Church when they collaborate with the clergy and the laity to seek the will of the Holy Spirit. Participation in synodal conversations is important for the ongoing development of doctrine. Many still long for more inclusive language translations for prayer, particularly in the breviary for the Liturgy of the Hours. The lectionary could include more stories of women. Catholic women themselves are still working out what it means to be “feminist” in a way that works with Church teaching. As community experiences of discernment have shown, this process can take time. The Church can be slow. Patience is an important virtue, as is charity for all.

Communities also can take steps toward healing the rift between the two leadership conferences. If consecrated women are to be in communion with each other, the scandal of this division needs to be overcome. For those coming from the LCWR side of the experience, getting to know and embrace the Church documents, especially those relating to religious life, would take things a long way. For those coming from the CMSWR, trust may be built by manifesting regular support for the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, and by assuring that human formation and structures of authority and obedience respect the dignity of the person. Transcendence and down-to-earth practicality need not be in undue opposition to each other. While difficult, probably slow work, steps need to be taken now such that this rift might be addressed, even if the full fruits are not seen for perhaps ten or fifteen years, when many communities will have come to completion.

Clearly education and formation continue to be important. Given the current state of affairs, those new to the religious life as well as many who have lived it for years need proper introduction to theology and the methods by which the Church continues to teach. As noted above, compiling a compendium of documents relating to religious life would be a great service toward this objective. In the meantime, the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life provides helpful links to some documents88; the list kept by the CMSWR is more organized and complete.89 Moreover, as a Church, mechanisms and incentives need to be created to train more women in theology. While men preparing for ordination receive significant theological education, at present there is no equally supported pathway for women to receive what they need to make their own contribution. As representatives of the Church, women religious need to be able to presume access to quality theological foundations. When more women are theologically trained at the highest levels, it will become easier to address remaining issues such as double standards in canon law around enclosure. While not every sister will have the capacity or interest in advanced theology, communities should provide for a certain baseline competence that helps sisters understand the theological meaning of their lives and equips them to evangelize faithfully.

The question of enclosure bears further reflection. While St. Benedict seems to envision a community enclosed within the monastery, the history of both men and women of the tradition has seen Benedictines participating in a number of apostolates, often away from the main house. Might there be ways for communities to organize their work such that more of it can be done from the monastery proper? While some magisterial documents are addressed primarily to contemplative communities, if Benedictines consider themselves a monastic tradition, the contemplative dynamic must also be a key element of a renewed spirituality.

The proposed synthesis admittedly is challenging. Given the age and years of experience of many sisters, responding to such a call may be too much to ask for many. Learning to think with the Church may not come naturally to those who have spent decades refining powers of critical thinking not subject to any particular authority. Habits of prayer, work, and socialization have already been formed. These are not easily changed. Issues need to be addressed at the personal, communal, and Church levels; the wider world itself cannot be expected to understand the vision offered immediately either. Introducing values and practices starting with new members may be possible, but this presents its own difficulties if elders are not prepared to be supportive. A certain level of community buy-in is key if violence is not to be done to those still getting their feet under them.

One possible way forward would be for a community or group of communities to make a new foundation, built on renewed principles. In this situation, those embarking on the venture would not be carrying so much of the “baggage” of past wounds or engrained habits. Ideally those willing to be part of a foundation would have ample time to make appropriate plans and to gather the needed resources prior to separation from their original house. Clearly young women are flocking to the traditionalist Benedictine community at Gower, Missouri, and its rapid offshoots. While some have concerns about the particular ecclesiological sensibility of this house, it must be admitted that elements of such a life are appealing precisely because they address some of the neglected theological dimensions of religious life documented above. Moreover, new vocations want to have peers in community. Women who long to live Benedictine life with an active apostolate should be given an option as well. The goal proposed is simply a community that respects the dignity and intelligence of women, which creates space for them to use their gifts, while framing their vocation within a theologically grounded ecclesial identity. Such a religious life would be prophetic witness. If such a house were founded within the next ten years, it also could potentially provide a “transfer landing pad” for those relatively younger Benedictine women whose communities will otherwise come to completion soon.

5. Conclusions

The world needs Benedictines today, and the Church particularly needs Benedictine women. The monastic tradition is rich with strong sisters who have inspired countless generations with their wise leadership and generous service. St. Hilda of Whitby, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Walburga of Heidenheim, and Benedicta Riepp each evangelized the Church and the world through their communities. Though in some ways we presently stand in a moment of decline, it also is a moment ripe with the possibility of new life within the Benedictine women’s tradition.