Video Conference to the non-Associated Carmels of Argentina by Father Karol Kraj, OCD General Secretary for the OCD Nuns

[graciandelamadrededios]

The Nuns of Santa Fe Carmel in Argentina transcribed portions of the Video-Conference provided by Father Karol and was shared to St. Joseph's Association.  Mother Mary Bethany, Subprioress of Georgetown Carmel translated this from Spanish to English.

First extract referring to the Constitutions of 1990 and 1991 Constitutions: how to understand them, apply them, explain them, and interpret them.

You know very well that the Constitutions change. From time to time, they change. You are also well aware that the Discalced Carmelite nuns have a stack of different Constitutions. Only for a brief time did they have one legislative text for everyone. At the beginnings of your life, you have the Constitutions written by the Holy Mother, the ones made by Father Gracian and approved at the Chapter of Alcala. These only lasted for a short while, because soon there were different legislative texts for the Carmelites who were being established in France and Belgium. The differences were sizable, noteworthy ones. At any rate, they began to have different legislative texts. Afterwards, through the centuries, it was normal for different texts of the Constitutions for Discalced Carmelite nuns to coexist. More recently, the Constitutions approved in 1926, from around the time of 1934 - 1936 had begun to be obligatory as the only legislative text for all the Discalced Carmelites. Thus there was a second period of time in which there was one text of Constitutions for all the Discalced Carmelite nuns. This, as we know, lasted until the approval of the Constitutions in 1990 and in 1991.

Thus, once again, we are facing a situation in which there is no longer just one legislative text for all the Carmelite nuns. Of course, anyone who knows something about the 1990 and 1991 Constitutions, immediately realizes that the differences between the two texts are big ones. They are different. I can say that I know both the text of the 1990 Constitutions and the 1991 text, not only because I kept up with Communities that lived by both texts, but because when I was doing my doctoral thesis, I found myself confronting this aspect, right? That is why I can say that I know something about both texts, that they are fairly different. But despite that, it is advisable and necessary to remember, and never to forget, that both texts are approved by the Church; so they are both of value, and they have the same value as far as being legislative texts. During my defense of my thesis, when they had asked me and made objections to me by saying," isn't it true that there is a problem with this fact of having two legislative texts?" I responded briefly, saying: "from the juridical point of view, this isn't a problem, because for the canonist the only important thing is to know how to interpret either one, and not the fact that there are two texts." If there are two, there are two. It's not up to me to say if there should or should not be two. As a canonist, this doesn't interest me. What interests me is to know how to interpret well both of the legislative texts that are legitimately approved and followed by the Communities. Of course, anyone who wants to interpret the Constitutions, has to have sufficient 5 mastery over the legislative texts. The person who has enough data referring to the circumstances in which the texts were born, has another instrument, another criterion, for interpreting the texts well. That is why it is important to know something. Having said this, I have no intention to propose again all the discussions about what went along with drawing up the Constitutions, whether the 90's or the 91's. At any rate, we know that the history of how they were written was not an easy one, right? Without getting into all that again, one can say many things. Besides, you can say that only from the perspective of the passing of the years, can the corresponding contingencies be better seen, as well as the problems that arose concerning the writing of the Constitutions. (...)

As people who believe in Providence, we can be totally at peace in accepting what we have, knowing that Providence always has sufficient means and remedies to fix up what we have changed or deformed, even what we have invented. So, in conclusion, there is no problem here.

What we have is the challenge to collaborate more and more effectively with Providence and with the Holy Spirit who goes before us as the one who guides us, teaches us, and brings us to the fullness of the truth…to the fullness of the truth. So, we have to know this, but as we have said, to also keep our peace, right? To hide all this, or to manipulate it, or to - I don't know - to want to make the history of the writing of the Constitutions more acceptable, would not be just. A believing person uses all his powers to face and take upon himself the reality of the facts. It's not appropriate to modify those facts in order to make them more easily accepted and recognized. So, the reality is what it is, and thanks to the years that have passed, certain things can now be seen. This fact of seeing things that previously were hidden can surely be very useful, and can serve to cultivate interest in what is objective. As our Holy Mother enjoyed doing so much: to know what a thing was, to see what made it tick. When you read our Holy Mother, you can discover this, that it was almost a necessity for her to arrive at the truth of things. Equally so with all that had to do with God. If a person doesn't have this concern, this interest, in the dynamism of the way of perfection, probably this person will never achieve the characteristics that our Holy Mother loved. There has to be a desire to know "what is God like." To want to see God. That which I discover today is fitting for today, but it might not be fitting for tomorrow. Tomorrow, I have to begin anew, building upon the foundation of what I had gotten to know up until yesterday. In order to know more. To know "what is God like." A person who doesn't have this desire, this necessity, will only with difficulty follow the way of perfection. For to arrive at a deeper communion with God, one must desire to see Him better, to understand Him better - of course, always within the realm of possibility.

With regards to the Constitutions: we know that they change. The thing that doesn't change is the reality which the Constitutions signify. It's a strange thing, because on the one hand, the Constitutions describe the reality that they point to; but they always depend on this reality and never exhaust it, they never manage to describe it sufficiently. This is why, independently of the Constitutions or the ways in which they are articulated, the reality of which they speak remains. It stays as it is. It doesn't 6 change. The Constitutions don't have the power to allow the changing of what they describe, of what they want to express through the norms. This is very consoling, because in allowing the changing of the Constitutions, we can have good ones or bad ones; but what we have to live, doesn't change. This is very important to know, isn't it? The Constitutions codify what it means to live a certain vocation given by God to some baptized people. The vocation is that of the Discalced Carmelite nun. They codify that. So - to understand the Constitutions, one must apply a contrary process - to "uncodify." Interpretation means, or in fact would mean, a proof of "uncodifying" the text, and arriving at what it is codifying. Here is where you can see the function of norms. I don't know if I'll manage to explain this very well. I venture to repeat myself, in order that you may learn. I'm not repeating this for any other reasons. We are not parrots. Alright then, I'm going to repeat myself. The Constitutions want to be a codification of your charism. Therefore, when the Constitutions are being read, it's fitting to "uncodify" them, in order to arrive at what they are codifying. The interesting thing is this: the only person who can "uncodify" them (apart from the lawgiver who put them together and thus knows the ins and outs of the process), is someone who enjoys the vocation which is referred to in the Constitutions. This means something else: if a Discalced Carmelite nun isn't really clear about who she is as a Carmelite, she will never be able to achieve "uncodifying" what the Constitutions lay down. Now you see that, in order to read the Constitutions well, it's very important to be very clear about one's identity: to know who I am.

By analogy, this is like what happened with the 10 Commandments. We began by knowing them from outside of ourselves. But as long as we couldn't find them within ourselves, there was no true possibility that we could ever keep them. Because we have the 10 commandments within ourselves. We know this well. For it is inside of ourselves that God lives. We have a fellowship with God, not just ontologically. Where there is baptismal grace and other graces, then if the fellowship is functioning, you can understand the 10 commandments and keep them. But if you don't find them inside yourself, then the 10 commandments will always present themselves as something from outside, something imposed on me, something that I have to do. You will never manage to experience what Sacred Scripture says, that they aren't burdensome or heavy. Now that doesn't mean to say that they won't entail some difficulty. But if we don't have access to the commandments from within, clearly there is no possibility that they will ever seem to be something that is "ours." You would want to free yourself from the commandments. Analogically, something similar happens with regards to the Constitutions. If someone has this necessity to free herself from the Constitutions, it can mean two things: either the Constitutions were badly done and were not the ones truly given - or it can mean another thing. It can mean that the person who receives the Constitutions and has to live according to them, has not found the direct access to the vocation inside of herself. You can say this in another way. That the person doesn't know from within herself, who she is. That is why the Constitutions don't get to her. The Constitutions don't resonate with her. The Constitutions become for her an obstacle, something that "pushes and limits me". 7 So when a person who experiences the Constitutions in that way begins to interpret them, it's not hard to imagine what sort of interpretations come forth, right? So, I'll repeat one more time: it's very important to be very clear (and not just on an intellectual level) about: who am I? What is my identity? Because the Constitutions are a guide, it could be said that they are practically unnecessary. But they are necessary, aren't they?

This was said in view of underlining something, all right? I don't mean that you can live without Constitutions. I hope this is well understood.

I want to say that the reality of the Constitutions has to be perceived within oneself. Only then is there a possibility that you can interpret them. Only then could it occur that a person might, in an intelligent and creative way, interpret the norms that she is holding in her hands. 

published on October 2011

 

Edited March 6 by graciandelamadrededios