– Is the School of Mary a Charism? – Is it a new Community? – Can it become a religious order? – Can one receive a call to consecrate oneself to God in the School?
These are questions I often get asked.
In order to understand the School of Mary better (see Vision and Mission of the School), one should first read two articles which try to explain two forms of ecclesiology, or better said, the two ways the Church can manage the relationship between two forms of pastoral work in the Parish. The first is the actual pastoral work itself (let us call it the Priestly Function of the Church) which consists of Evangelisation and Catechesis, and the second form of pastoral work, that serves a deeper spiritual life, and which develops afterwards, is what Spiritual Theology terms the “second conversion”, which offers spiritual formation. The two articles in question are: The Epiphany of the Church of the Desert and The Transfiguration of the Parish.
These articles and the vision of the Church offered in each of them are important, as they help us to better understand what Baptism is. What comes initially with Baptism is catechesis. On the other hand what comes with the deepening of Baptism is spiritual formation. The deepening of Baptism is in fact a new phase which comes through the second conversion, when one personally meets the Risen Lord who comes, knocks at the door of the heart and is invited to follow Jesus closely. Vatican II has reminded us that all baptised persons are called to holiness. But being technically called because we are all baptised is one thing and actually hearing Jesus’ Call is something else (please read this article). This new step, marked at its inception by the second conversion, allows us not only to start to hear Jesus’ Call but also to be able to respond to it, by the Grace of God. A totally new journey will be initiated.
If one reads both articles and compares them, one will see two visions of the Parish: one, more restricted, which in fact has lasted for 2,000 years and the second one, a possibly more wholesome vision of the Parish for the Third Millennium.
How can the Third Millennium Parish be achieved? The answer lies in utilising and developing the spiritual formation found in the School which can be instrumental in creating this new form of Parish.
Theology itself, as it is understood and taught today, can only offer us the first type of understanding of what the Parish is and this has lasted for about 2000 years. If we want the new more complete Parish form, we will need to change Theology itself and make it more spiritual. (See the Integral Theology Project).
As a consequence, the formation itself of future Priests in Seminary will have to change and follow the renewed Integral Theology.
In fact, a new Body of Teaching on Spiritual Life and Spiritual Formation will need to emerge and be constituted. Books presenting this new teaching (like a proper Catechism of Spiritual Life) will need to be created and published. Furthermore, new courses which offer spiritual formation will also have to be given (see the Three-Year Plan).
Any Courses or Institutes of today are based on the actual form Theology has today. By contrast, the School of Mary does not conduct itself in this way. Maybe it might be fairer to say that the theology we use in the School of Mary belongs to this future vision, – it belongs to the Third Millennium.
This, then, could be the reason for anyone of those who are well formed in the Church, who are well-intentioned, and even very spiritual, do still find the School of Mary’s Teaching different: different in its method, its contents and in the fact that it is more complete. As an example, one can just watch the reactions of the students when they attend the Course on St. John and Spiritual Life (see the Presentation and the first hour). The Course – without neglecting any of the solid inputs of Exegesis and of Biblical Theology – in its method and contents is like an offering of another world, of another vision. This is what some call: “Biblical Spiritual Theology”. What perplexes the students is that in all these three cases (Exegesis, Theology, Spiritual Theology) the same text from the Scriptures is still being read with a view to understanding it in greater depth. The difference, however, is that Spiritual Biblical Theology suddenly allows us to see the text from another point of view and dimension and offers “new” contents.
As a consequence, it is readily understandable that those who are first introduced to the School and experience the difference, as a result they feel the desire to offer their help. Some, on the other hand, feel they would like to answer Jesus’ call by consecrating themselves to Him in the School. I have received such requests. Not many, but it has happened. I am unsure of what the candidates had or have in mind as I never intended or felt called to create a new Community. The reason is quite significant I believe. From my personal experience, community life and immediate pastoral work often take up 80% of one’s time and energy, so that carrying out the mission of the School, its raison d’etre, will then take second place. what it is meant for. I am open to discussion on this, but let me first clarify a few more aspects about the School which can be found on the website also (see here).
The School of Mary, then, is focused on preparing and making available the tools for a proper renewal in Spiritual Formation: Teaching, Publishing, Research, Training Formators…. The School, in fact, is totally focused on the contents of Spiritual Theology, on developing another method of work, more complete and practical, one which the School has inherited from its predecessors: St. Therese, Bl. Marie Eugene, Fr. Louis Guillet OCD, to name but a few. The School, in fact, tries today to do its part, progress in this line of work and mission and enact a real and proper development according to this line of approach.
It cannot be stressed enough that Formation in Spiritual Life is necessary everywhere: the seminary, religious noviciate, formation houses etc. Formation in Spiritual Life, as we have indicated, leans on Theology as it is today. In fact, Theology has acquired different forms and contents throughout the centuries through Apologists, Fathers of the Church, Monastic Schools, Cathedral Schools, Scholastic University, …, Neo-Thomistic, Nouvelle Theologies, History of Salvation…. However, despite all the efforts made during last century, and even if we felt the gap between University Theology and Spiritual Theology, Theology today is not spiritual. Admittedly, Theology today does have in its structure a minor course on Spiritual Theology – it started in recent times historically – the early 1930. Sadly, when one sees its contents, it is often something limited and shallow. The Spiritual Theology renewal in the first half of last century was like the elephant which gave birth to a mouse, so to speak. After WWII, it must be avowed, departing from proper theological methods, Spiritual Theology became shallow and not very relevant. Many important subjects literally disappeared from the Course, like for instance and by no means the least one: contemplation. Now, we need to be aware that Spiritual Formation does not draw its contents from other wells of information. It draws from the actual state of Spiritual Theology and leans on it. So, if Spiritual Theology is ill, as a consequence, despite a certain spiritual renewal after Vatican II, Spiritual Formation is not what it should be. Indeed, for example, today one can easily find a teaching on Lectio Divina, but it does not go that far. Other subjects have disappeared or are not properly addressed, despite the great thirst our contemporaries have for meditation: Contemplative Prayer. This is the result of the defaults in the methods used in Spiritual Theology in the first part of last century.
In general terms, and this is valid for any period of the Church’s life whether we want it or not, Theology shapes our way of seeing, thinking and acting our Faith. In this sense and for these reasons, the root of the problem is a Theology that has lost its “saltiness” – the non-spiritual state of actual Theology. It needs to be completely renewed from within and establish theologically the relationship between the spiritual life of the student and his studies (see our Project: Integral Theology).
In this sense, therefore, the School is a more fitting place for an improved Theology. A Spiritual one. It is a place for Spiritual Formation. It is a place where we develop and produce all the needed tools to offer this spiritual formation, mainly centering on:
1- A Spiritual Doctrine for all
2- Forming Formators in Spiritual Life
These programs are to be found on the website under “Courses” (see the main menu on the website).
Now can this type of work that the School produce be a “charism”? Can this be the foundation for a new community? Can this be the reason for and the place where one could consecrate oneself to God? It is true that I myself am totally “consecrated” to God in this work – but I am a lay person, and I am married. Then, does this mean that it can be a vocation which expresses itself through one’s particular state of life? Indeed, there are many people (all lay) who work in the School and some have a total sense of commitment and dedication to the School, to the point that I consider them to be totally part of the School and the School’s Mission.
When considering an answer to these questions, let us go back to our initial thoughts: all formation houses need formators. Ideally, they would come to the School of Mary to be formed and then go back and form their novices in their houses of formation. In this sense the School of Mary is for all and intends to provide the tools of spiritual formation for all. The School on the other hand does not interfere with the different types of Religious Formation the novice needs to receive: any novice in a religious order altogether receives at least two formations: a Religious Formation and a Spiritual Formation. The call for holiness needs both formations, even if, for the process of sanctification, religious orders often lean considerably on abiding with the style of life of the order (obedience to the constitutions, to the superior, etc), its religious formation and what we call today the “charism of the founder”.
Let us now consider the next question as to whether the School itself, if it has a physical place where many members work during the day, can constitute a Community? Can people receive the call to consecrate themselves to God as an active member of the School? If so, they would want a Rule of Life, Constitutions, etc. They would have prayer times added to the three hours suggested by the School: one hour for Lectio Divina and two for the Prayer of the Heart. They would need a formator on site and a superior on site. This might be enormously energy consuming for them and detract from their work at the School. And for me this is the major concern.
In 2006, an Italian Priest, a very dear friend of mine, seeing the success of the Courses started in 2004 in Italy asked me to found a new movement in the Church. He felt that there was a need for it, especially comparing it with the actual movements.
My reply to him was:” Dear Father, our main problem in the Church is not the lack of new movements or orders or vocations per se. Our main problem is the absence of a clear common spiritual doctrine to form spiritually all the candidates in the Church once they enter. In my eyes, the Church is in a state of emergency, which I would dearly like to lift by dedicating all my time and energy to constituting this Body of Doctrine, because simply we don’t have it – of course all the elements do exist, but they are not put together in a structured body of doctrine. I can’t expend my energy in building the first or second floor of a structure if the foundations of the building are not there. My duty, as painful and as hidden a work that it may be, is to dedicate all my energy to developing this Body of Doctrine as much as I can, through God’s call and by God’s grace, despite my sins. This is what I feel in my conscience as a duty to which I need to dedicate all my time and energy. This is what I received and this is what I need to give back”.
So, I ended by declining his proposal. The Priest failed to understand my point, so taken was he by the success we had achieved that he forgot about the real problem in the Church.
This is why I have a deep respect for the truth of what some of the School’s practitioners say: “my spiritual life took a different turn when I received the School’s Teaching”. This is exactly my point: this Teaching does not exist elsewhere (at least not in the form we have in the School) and it is not fully constituted yet (which is what we need to continue to do). We need all the stages of the Spiritual Journey to be presented, explained, and to make available the didactic tools that go with it.
I am acquainted with the level of formation in the different institutions in the Church and find it to be quite rudimentary and shallow, even if nobody will say so. Why? Because Theology shapes our mind and vision, and what we are offering follows today’s Theology. If one espouses another theology and is trained in it, he or she will see that there is infinitely much more and of a higher calibre to offer in Spiritual Formation. Furthermore, there are complete practical areas in Spiritual Formation which have not been addressed at all to date.
In conclusion, it is more than surprising to hear from nuns with fifty or more years of experience in religious life, as well as belonging to highly rated orders in the Church, often saying to me, after hearing some lessons from the Solid Foundations Course: “Jean, I never heard these things before”. Let us leave aside the fact that this breaks my heart and makes it bleed, it only confirms the state of emergency I personally have been living in since 1995, when I had the opportunity to see the formation offered by various religious orders and the reality suddenly hit me. The Body of Spiritual Doctrine has, without question, to be shaped for the universal Church, written, given/taught, transmitted to others so they in turn can teach it. This is an absolute priority. Then religious life and consecrated life in all its forms will make better sense.
Bluntly put, the question now is: can we collectively gird our loins and work on this emergency project?
Jean Khoury
St. Augustin’s Feast, 2023