|
Home | Esercizi spirituali | Canti | Esperienze | Saggi | Links | News |
|
The deliberation that started the Jesuits |
|
|
|
|
|
Testo |
Some of us were French, others Spanish, Savoyards,
or Portuguese. After meeting for many sessions, there was a cleavage of sentiments
and opinions about our situation. While we all had one mind and heart in seeking
God’s gracious and perfect will according to the scope of our vocation; nevertheless,
regarding the more readily effective and more fruitful ways of achieving
God’s will for ourselves and others, we held diverse views. No one ought to wonder that this diversity of views
should be found among us, spiritually infirm and feeble men; even the
apostles themselves, princes and pillars of the most holy Church, sometimes
thought in opposing ways and handed down in writing their conflicting
judgments. So also did many other very perfect men with whom we cannot be
remotely compared. Since we did hold different judgments, we ere
eagerly on the watch to discover some unobstructed way along which we might
advance together and all of us offer ourselves as a holocaust to our God, in
whose praise, honour, and glory we would yield our all. At last we made a
decision. In full agreement we settled on this that we would give ourselves
to prayer, Masses, and meditations more fervently then usual and, after doing
our very best we would for the rest cast all our concerns on the Lord, hoping
in him. He is so kind and generous that he never denies his good Spirit to
anyone who petitions him in humility and simplicity of heart; rather, he
gives to all extravagantly, not holding back from anyone. In no way, then,
would he who is kindness itself desert us; rather, he would be with us more
generously than we asked or imagined. |
|
|
|
|
|
The issue can be made clear by a case. The pope is
sending two of us to the city of Siena. Ought we to be [especially] concerned
about those who are going to that place or they about us? And ought we to
have a mutual understanding of this concern? Or should we have no more
concern for them than we have for those who are not in this Company? In the end we established the affirmative side of
the question, that is, that in as much as our most kind and affectionate Lord
had deigned to gather us together and unite us, men so spiritually weak and
from such diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds, we ought no split
apart what God has gathered and united; on the contrary, we ought day by day
to strengthen and stabilize our union, rendering ourselves one body with
special concern for each other, in order to effect the greater spiritual good
of our fellow men. For united spiritual strength is more robust and braver in
any arduous enterprise than it would be if segmented. We want it understood that nothing at all that has
been or will be spoken of originated from our own spirit or our own thought;
rather, whatever it was, it was solely what our Lord inspired and the
Apostolic See then confirmed and approved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a second line of thought which we set in
motion for the sake of resolving the impasse regarding obedience. This was to
propose the following spiritual preparations for each and every member of the
whole group. The first preparation: Each would ready himself
beforehand, would take time for prayer, Masses, and meditation in order to
strive for joy and peace in the Holy Spirit regarding obedience, labouring as
much as he could to have a predilection for obeying rather than commanding,
when the consequent glory of God and the praise of his majesty would be
equal. The second preparation: None of the companions would
communicate with other about this matter at issue or inquire about his
reasoning on it. The point of his preparation was to prevent anyone from
being persuaded by another and, therefore, biased more toward obedience [by
vow to one of their own number] or the contrary. This way each would desire
as more advantageous only what he derived from his own prayer and meditation. The third preparation: Each one would think of
himself as a stranger to our group who would have no expectation of joining
it. Thinking this way he would escape being carried by his emotions more to
one opinion and judgment; rather, as if a stranger, he would speak his
thought to the group about having or not having obedience, would by his
judgment confirm and recommend what he believed would be for God’s grater
service and would more secure the Company’s lasting preservation. |
|
|
For example, one said: It seems that, on account of
our failures and sins, the words “religious”, or “obedience” have unseemly
connotations among the Christian people. Another remarked: If we wish to live under
obedience, we will perhaps be forced by the supreme pontiff to live under
some Rule already drown up and officially established. So it will eventuate
that all our desires which we have judged to be from Our Lord will be frustrated;
for there will be no opportunity and freedom to work for the salvation of our
fellow men, the one very thing, after concern for our own salvation, which we
have had in mind. Another observed: If we promise obedience to
someone, not so many men will enter our company to labour faithfully in the
Lord’s vineyard, where the harvest is very great but few true labourers are
found. For men in general have so little strength to labour or endure without
breaking under it that many look out more for themselves and their own wishes
than they do for the wishes of Jesus Christ and the complete denial of self
for his sake. So also others spoke to the pint in other ways, a fourth, and a fifth, and
so on, explaining the disadvantages which occurred to them as reasons against
obedience. On the next day we argued for the opposite side of
the question, each one putting before the group all the advantages and good
consequences of such obedience which he had drawn from prayer and meditation;
each one took his own turn to present his reflections, sometime s showing the
positive values of obedience, sometimes reducing the alternative to an
impossibility. Here are some examples. One man’s argument took this
form of a reduction ad absurdam et
impossibile. If without the agreeable yoke of obedience, this Company of
ours had to carry on practical undertakings, no one would have any precise
charge, since one would pass off the burden onto the other, as we have many
times experienced. Again, if this Company were without obedience, it could not long e |