Interview with an Augustinian

If you were not as familiar with the Augustinian Order as with better-known Orders like the Franciscans or the Jesuits, partly it's because it is small. A helpful interview gives their leader, Father Moral Antón, as well as church historians and others a chance to explain how this group of friars operates. I did not realize, for example, that Martin Luther had been a member before provoking the Protestant Reformation. 
“The Holy Father will certainly be inspired by this search for communion and dialogue,” said Pierantonio Piatti, a historian of Augustinians with the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, a Vatican office. That would mesh with the concept of “synodality,” fulfilling Francis’ vision of a church that brings bishops and lay people together to make big decisions.

“The other great element of Augustinian spirituality,” Dr. Piatti added, is a “search for balance between action and contemplation, between contemplation and action.”

In part because of their small size, Augustinian priests are a tight-knit community around the world, and many have encountered Leo over the years.

“Even when we disagree on something like politics, we have no trouble talking to one another,” said Father Allan Fitzgerald, 84, an Augustinian priest and longtime professor at Villanova University northwest of Philadelphia, which Leo graduated from in 1977. “I think we are, in some ways, an image of the U.S. There is certainly a whole swath of us that is to one side and to the other. Even if we can’t talk directly about politics, we are still able to talk about things that matter.”
Dad29 points out that exactly what is meant by "synodality" is tremendously unclear, at least in terms of practical application. You can imagine trying to apply it to secular governance: sure, it would be nice if the government's officials also listened to the people in making big decisions, but what exactly is the mechanism for that? Public comment periods? Do those actually influence powerful bureaucrats? Referenda? More frequent elections, to subject officials to public approval? Less frequent elections, so the officials have time to listen rather than constantly campaigning and raising money? Even if you have a very generously-minded President, how would he go about soliciting the opinion of 400 million people? Given that they disagree, often sharply, how should he weight such opinions if he could gather them usefully?

In the religious context, there has been an additional consideration on top of those practical difficulties. It has normally been thought that those who are devoted to the religious life should have special authority when speaking to such matters. Unlike professional bureaucrats or politicians, the members of religious orders were thought to be especially devoted to virtue and morals. That presumption has been somewhat weakened in recent generations. 

5 comments:

Dad29 said...

Protestant Reformation.

Nope. Protestant Revolution.

Dad29 said...

Having lit a small bonfire with the above, we'll move on to "synodality."

Asking the opinion of laypeople on matters theological and/or moral will draw exactly what the Church does not need: a bunch of self-pleading. One does not need a wild imagination to believe that laypeople will overwhelmingly oppose Church teaching on the NO-NO of artificial contraception, no matter its foundation in Scripture, (OT and NT) nor on any appeals to natural law. And that's just the "mild" sin......

Thomas Doubting said...

Interesting. I've heard of these orders, but don't know much about any of them.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

As Dad29 shows, it's one of those things that sound wonderful, but in practice have all sorts of potential to deteriorate. In mental health, education, civic construction, the environment and Lord knows what else we eventually got to "stakeholders," which is anyone who wants to make noise about it.

douglas said...

It strikes me that the modern era made every man the 'renaissance' man- expert on all, determiner of his own destiny- and then came around to wanting to strip all that away with the power of the centralized state. No deference, but to the state. Group above any individual. Thus why the primacy of the individual is paramount.