This short report is intended as an up-to-date summary of the situation regarding our Franciscan identity under two aspects: developments during the sexennium just ended, and the impact of the question on the history of our Order, both currently and in the recent past.

I. Some important facts

1. Our response to the church’s challenge

1.1 The Order’s current and recent history has one chapter that is truly fundamental, namely the account of the commitment made everywhere at all levels to obey the church’s call for the appropriate renewal of religious life. Reflecting on the conciliar principles for the renewal and adaptation of religious institutes, it is beyond doubt that our Order has expended more effort, and deliberately so, on the profound study of the evangelical insights and intentions of Francis as founder, and of how to put them into practice. They are, after all, the focus and inspiration of the Capuchin project and of the Order’s sound traditions.

1.2 In the light of much research, reflection, and experience, we have succeeded in identifying in the nouns brother and brotherhood-fraternity the specific kernel of the gospel form of life revealed by the Most High to Francis. As a consequence, we have been able to identify ourselves clearly as an Order of brothers (see Const. 83, 5ff.; 115, 6), with no qualifier, either “clerical” or “lay.” In other words, we are an Order where all members, by reason of the same religious vocation, are equal and are called to strive for fulfilment without any distinction, in accordance with the gospel law of fraternal charity: “you are all brothers” (Mt 23:8; ER 22, 35). In this sense, Francis instinctively grasped the underlying theological reality of the religious state as something which “in itself is neither clerical nor lay” (see CIC, can. 588, 1).

1.3 On this evangelical foundation the Franciscan charism is concretely expressed in the lives of
individual brothers and fraternities in a variety of forms: spiritual, occupational, apostolic, legislative, and institutional. This principle – the priority of our life of gospel brotherhood – leads us to make radical choices, in accordance with our promise to “live the gospel of Jesus Christ” (see the Prologue of the ER). Francis lived this principle in its dimensions of prayer, minority, poverty, penance, presence among the people, witness and service, and in the option for peace, justice, and respect for creation, etc. (see IV PCO, 36ff. and V PCO). Above all, gospel brotherhood must be the principle that guides the process of our formation as Franciscans (a process encompassing the entire lifespan of each brother), just as it is the standard by which we assess our mission of service to the church and to the world. “The prophetic witness of lived fraternity is at the heart of our work of evangelization” (V PCO, 21). “The chief apostolate of a lesser brother is this: to live the gospel life in the world, [faithful to the challenge arising out of our own name] in sincerity, simplicity and joy” (Const. 145, 2).

1.4 On this point two very significant statements from the teaching of John Paul II are worth recalling. They reflect an awareness of our concerns on the part of today’s ecclesiastical authorities, and are in complete harmony with the main thrust of recent Capuchin renewal.

• On the occasion of the 1982 general chapter, the pope told us: “You have rediscovered your original inspiration by reflecting with new sensitivity on the very name you received as a legacy from your father St. Francis, and that name is: friars minor. Within that name, in fact, the saint enclosed all that was most precious to him about the gospel, and closest to his heart: brotherhood and minority, loving one another as brothers, and choosing for oneself the lowest place, after the example of Christ who came ‘not to be served but to serve’ (Mt 20:28). This shows that a return to the sources is also often the best way of adapting to present day needs and responding to the signs of the times” (July 5, 1982).

• Again, at the 1988 general chapter the pope told us: “The typical aspect of Capuchin identity is to be found in the primacy of the life of evangelical brotherhood, enlivened by a strong contemplative experience, and lived in radical poverty, austerity, and simplicity, in joyful penance and total availability for service to all people” (July 12, 1988). The immediate precedent for this last statement of the pope is found in the rescript of the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes (December 25, 1986) giving approval to our constitutions. That rescript officially defines Capuchins as religious who, above all, “strive to live the life of gospel brotherhood, supported chiefly by the spirit of prayer.”

1.5 The Franciscan identity of our Order gives rise to certain important juridical consequences, in what one might call the structural or institutional domain. St. Francis, with his characteristic clarity of vision and simplicity, had already foreseen these consequences or practical applications. It appears from the writings and practice of St. Francis that his intention was to form a gospel brotherhood uniting all its members, whether cleric or lay, in a single family without any distinction in principle, not even as regards access to the office of superior. One example is sufficient to illustrate this: Francis made explicit provision for the normal possibility of non-ordained friars being elected to the office of provincial minister, and included that possibility in his Rule, “confirmed by apostolic authority” of Pope Honorius III on November 29, 1223, and previously “approved by his predecessor Pope Innocent III”: “If the ministers are priests, they shall, with mercy, impose a penance on [the friars who sin]. If they are not priests, they shall have it imposed by others who are priests of the Order” (LR 7). The same Rule lays down, as a normal possibility, that the brothers would have “one of the friars of the Order as general minister,” without any distinction (LR 8). Making the ecclesial power of governance in the Order – the ministerium fratrum or service of the brothers (ER 17) – open to all the brothers was proposed to “the Lord Pope” and lived out as a necessary consequence of the gospel identity of lesser brothers as Francis intended it. It may also be useful to remember that the Roman curia had no difficulty approving
this very broad fraternal equality, even on the institutional level at a time when the curia was replete with eminent canonists, beginning with Innocent III himself and Cardinal Ugolino (later Gregory IX). At the same time, one must also recognize that, in practice, as Franciscan history testifies, this project of the founder did not remain a merely juridical possibility. Quite the opposite! The history of the Franciscan Order, not only in the lifetime of Francis but later, knows many non-ordained brothers who held office as major or local superiors.

1.6 On the other hand, it is also worthwhile to underline one extremely important fact from our Capuchin history. Precisely because it is part of the inheritance we have received from St. Francis, the fact that Pope Pius V confirmed the Order’s tradition had an altogether unique value, as the 1575 revision of our Constitutions declare: “However, notwithstanding the decree of the Sacred Council of Trent [which excluded lay brothers from the office of superior and deprived them of active and passive voice], by declaration or concession of Pius V (of happy memory), all brothers, whether cleric or lay, who have made profession among us, shall have active voice. But none shall have passive voice unless he has completed four years in our congregation” (see Constitutions of 1575, Ch. VIII). This sentence, inserted into the Capuchin constitutions ever since, left its mark on the Order’s history almost as far as our own day. In reality, the age old tradition of the Capuchin Order – so clear on this very point, so distinctively our own – is nothing other than a logical confirmation of the thought of St. Francis and of the practice deriving from him.

1.7 In complete harmony with this Capuchin Franciscan background, the Order’s constitutions,
revised in the light of the Second Vatican Council and approved by the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes (December 25, 1986), declare: “All offices and services within the Order, a province and a local fraternity should be open to all the brothers, taking account however of those acts which require sacred orders” (Const. 84, 5). “Since we are an Order of brothers, in accordance with the will of St. Francis and genuine Capuchin tradition, all brothers in perpetual vows are eligible for all offices or positions, saving those things which result from sacred orders” (Const. 115, 6). The drafters of these texts of the Constitutions of the Order were also guided by the following inspired and important statement of Vatican II: “However, men’s monasteries and institutes which are not entirely lay (non mere laicalia) can, of their very nature, admit clerics and lay men, in accordance with the constitutions, on an equal footing and with equal rights and obligations, apart from those arising out of sacred orders” (Perfectae Caritatis 15). This was a conciliar statement of extraordinary importance which provided the opportunity for the following authoritative comment by John Paul II, in a speech to participants at the plenary session of the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes on January 24, 1986: “Vatican II speaks of institutes that are “non mere laicalia” (PC 15). All of this shows us how the Holy Spirit, who is always active in the church, brings forth new blossoms from the ever youthful root of baptism and the ancient trunk of the evangelical counsels: new structures, new institutes, new lay ministries. By stating that “the state of consecrated life is, by its nature, neither clerical nor lay” (see can. 588, 1), the Code of Canon Law intended to recognize this reality, leaving room for God’s Spirit to suggest new possibilities in order to meet the new needs of the apostolate.”

1.8 In conclusion, it seems only right to point out some significant facts from our Order’s history. The confirmation by St. Pius V (mentioned above) in response to a request from us, lent credence to the fact that the Capuchin Order, ever since its foundation, applied the norms of Franciscan legislation regarding active and passive voice in capitular elections. These norms remained substantially unaltered until the beginning of the last century, when, in particular, the standardizing effects of the 1917 Code made themselves felt. At the same time, the attitude maintained by the Holy See at certain moments when the juridical equality of all the friars was compromised or challenged, speaks volumes. The church has always been totally consistent with the centuries of jurisprudence in the Order, and has respected and substantially protected our sound, legitimate customs. This practice of the Holy See and of the Order proves that both were aware of the overall importance of the question and of the specific issues. The recognition of the Order as an institute that is “neither clerical nor lay”– with all the consequences – derives from the fact of its being a brotherhood – as St. Francis intended – and from the evangelical motives underpinning the profession of life as brothers.

2. Some difficulties along the way

2.1 Having substantially concluded the work of renewing our Constitutions – inspired above all by a desire to return, as the church wanted, to the sources of the founder’s charism – we met with some difficulties. On July 7, 1984, the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes informed us that the text of the new Constitutions had been approved – with a few “observations.” The most substantial observation was this: “Add (somewhere in the text) that the Order is a clerical institute.” Later, repeating the same request, the dicastery indicated the exact formulation and place for the proposed addition (115, 6 of the Constitutions). “Since we are an Order of brothers, in accordance with the will of St. Francis ... saving those things which result from sacred orders, since the church numbers our Order among the clerical institutes. If it is a question of superiors...” (Ordo enim noster...; the conjunction enim confirms or explains the preceding clause, and translates as since, for, because).

2.2 It may be useful to remember, first of all, that this problem is not exclusive to ourselves. A large group of religious institutes found themselves with essentially the same difficulty, although the case of the Franciscans has some very particular features, as the pope himself – and generally, most of the participants – recognized at the Synod of Bishops on the Consecrated Life.

2.3 Maintaining that such a declaration constituted a grave problem of conscience for the Order, the general minister and his definitory considered themselves unable to agree to the requested change and appealed to the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes on January 22, 1987. Despite repeated approaches on our part – in the form of appropriate statements explaining the reasons for our difficulty, namely that we could not introduce into our proper constitutional law an extraneous element contrary to the will of the founder, to the identity and sound traditions of the Order, and to the decisions of the recent general chapters that drafted the Constitutions (from 1968 onwards) – it proved impossible to defuse the situation.

2.4 The Roman dicastery insisted on the absolute impossibility of a type of consecrated life other than the two clearly and exclusively accepted by the new Code of Canon Law (can. 588, 2-3): i.e., clerical institutes and lay institutes. It continued to insist even after a reply was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (May 26, 1987) which did not rule out, and in fact implied, the possibility of other categories of institutes in addition to the two explicitly mentioned in the Code. This broad interpretation was expounded at the Synod on Religious Life (October 14, 1994) by Cardinal Rosalio José Castillo Lara, S.D.B., then chairperson of the Pontifical Council. Furthermore, the Roman congregation adopted the opinion whereby there exists an inherent link between the power of jurisdiction in the church and the sacrament of Orders. Consequently, in this view, those who have not received the sacrament of Orders – at least diaconate – cannot share in the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Such a principle, however, would appear to raise considerable difficulties regarding the doctrine, law and age-old practice of the church. Finally, the suggestion was made of holding a kind of referendum, so that all the members of the institute (either directly or by means of specific interventions by the general chapter, for example) could decide on the nature of the institute. Such a procedure, however, would raise grave juridical difficulties. In the first place, it would be necessary to limit the problem carefully to those institutes which “in the course of time acquired a different form from that envisaged in the founder’s original design” (John Paul II, Vita Consecrata, 61). But this obviously applies to cases where the change results from a free choice by the institute as such, and not from external influences. In our case it is evident – in light of the Order’s history – that we neither can nor should ask ourselves “whether it is appropriate and possible to return to their original inspiration” (VC 61), i.e., to the will of the founder. Besides, if, for example, a majority of friars were to decide that our Order is “clerical” or “lay,” it would be strange if that decision had binding force since it would be in clear contrast with the manifest intention of Francis sanctioned by the church’s highest authority. This is not a matter of changing the nature of the Order, but of gaining “recognition” for the Order, on the historic, juridical, and charismatic levels, in the way St. Francis wished and the Order’s sound tradition has handed down to us. It was in response to explicit norms of the church itself, in their turn applying decisions taken by Vatican II, that the Order tackled this problem. It has now concluded the task after long years of conscientious work by the entire Order, sanctioned by recent general chapters and incorporated into the present Constitutions, which have been approved by the Holy See.

2.5 Because the problem was so delicate and so difficult to resolve, the general minister and his
definitory, moved by a grave duty of conscience, appealed directly to the pope. This was done not by way of a juridical recourse, but simply asking for the grace to be allowed to live the Order’s charism as St. Francis entrusted it to us, and as preserved and handed down to us by our sound, legitimate tradition (letter of December 25, 1987). We cannot therefore see ourselves “numbered among the clerical institutes.” We are well aware that the pope is close to us and sincerely understands us, and that he made us an explicit, formal promise to reply to our humble and trustful request at the appropriate moment. In the meantime, we have obviously not inserted the above-mentioned “addition” in the Constitutions. That the reply has taken longer than expected is understandable, in view of the other implications of the subject for the life and universal law of the church as a whole, and of the varied particular law of religious institutes, as was apparent at the Synod on Consecrated Life.

2.6 Against this background there are a number of salient facts which are worth bearing in mind:

• The general minister, Br. Flavio Roberto Carraro, at the conclusion of a report on “Non-cleric brothers in the Capuchin Franciscan Order” (January 23, 1986), given at a plenary meeting of the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, said this: “I know I am speaking, not to a tribunal of judges, but as a son of the church to its hierarchy, which is always particularly attentive to the voice of the Spirit. This is why I take the liberty of manifesting to you my present state of mind, which is also shared by the general council in its entirety. If, in the course of my service as minister, I were to promulgate a text of the Constitutions that declared our Order to be ‘a clerical Order,’ I would feel I was acting against my conscience. And this causes me deep distress and anguish.”

• John Paul II, in a message to General Minister John Corriveau (September 18, 1996) on the occasion of the Order’s international congress on the lay dimensions of the Capuchin vocation, deliberately stressed the link between the identity of our Capuchin Franciscan fraternity and the nature of the so-called “mixed institutes”, to which he refers in Vita Consecrata (61). These are the ones “which in the founder’s original design were envisaged as a brotherhood, in which all the members – priests and those who were not priests – were considered equal among themselves.” We do not know whether, in addressing this message to us, the pope had in mind our letter of December 25, 1987. We are, however, morally certain of two things: that he is well aware of the “unease” we have been carrying in our hearts for many years, and that the essential substance of his message is the clearest and most beautiful reply to our humble, trusting request of Christmas 1987. Certainly our Franciscan identity, as the pope recognizes, does not permit us to place ourselves in the category of the so-called “clerical institutes”.

Another significant fact is the practice of the Roman dicastery:
• to Capuchins, it has granted numerous dispensations for non-ordained brothers to be appointed local superiors. Furthermore, in two cases, it has granted the postulation of a lay friar as major superior (May 4, 1983 and July 10, 1986);
• to other religious institutes presenting the same reasons as ourselves, it has given an overall solution to the problem, allowing their non-ordained brothers to be both local and major superiors.

2.7 For completeness, we should point out that in conducting negotiations with the Holy See, we
were alone for much of the time. Only after 1994 did we begin to work with the OFMs on the basis of a clear and obvious identity of views. However, despite the consistency of our common arguments, things have not yet been clarified on the part of the Roman dicastery, not least because certain issues have remained deadlocked since the Synod on Consecrated Life, and this has conditioned the dialogue for some time.

II. An Overview of the 1994-2000 Sexennium

There is little of substantive progress to report regarding initiatives taken by us in the matter of our Franciscan identity, for the reason given above (see 2.7 above).

1. In the context of the Synod on the consecrated life

• Contributions made by some friars during the synod, i.e., the public interventions of Br. John Corriveau (October 10, 1994), Br. Flavio Roberto Carraro, former general minister (October 11, 1994); and Br. Ignatius Feaver (October 11, 1994). One could also add the intervention of Bp. Franghiskos Papamanolis, OFM, Cap. (October 6, 1994), and of Abp. John Aloysius Ward, OFM, Cap. (October 11, 1994).

• On July 13, 1995, two letters signed by our general minister and by Br. Hermann Schalück, the OFM general minister were sent. One was to the pope, the other to Cardinal Jan Peter Schotte, CICM, secretary of the Synod of Bishops. The letters basically reiterated our expectations and deliberately emphasized Proposal 10 of the Synod as an inspired principle enabling us to identify ourselves as neither clerical nor lay institutes in fidelity to the spirit and intentions of St. Francis. In fact, the same synod proposal called for the recognition of so-called “mixed institutes” in the church and outlined their essential features as: “religious institutes in which, according to the founder’s intention, all the members are equal, whether clerics or non-clerics, ‘on equal footing and with equal rights and obligations, apart from those arising out of sacred Orders’ (PC 15). It is further proposed that, when this is requested by the general chapter, offices of governance should be open to all without distinction”(Proposal 10).

• On the same topic, the visit of the two general ministers, Brs. John Corriveau and Hermann Schalück, to Cardinal Eduardo Martínez Somalo, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, on December 9, 1986, is memorable.

• In all our dealings with persons and entities of the Holy See we have always pointed out that not all the institutes which the synod calls “mixed” have the same juridical form, be it from the viewpoint of their foundational charism or of their sound traditions. We have, therefore, made the point that we wish to be able to re-express in its fullness our own original, age-old distinctiveness in these matters, both in our life and in our proper law.

2. The Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata
(March 25, 1996)

Number 61 of this papal document announced the establishment of a special commission “to examine and resolve the problems connected with the issue of ‘mixed institutes’. It is necessary to await this commission’s conclusions before making suitable decisions in accordance with what will be authoritatively determined.” On this point we can only note three things: that the presence of our Order in the work of this commission has been merely symbolic; that we are unable to foresee what conclusions will emerge from its work, or when and how they will be published, and that, most of all, we do not know whether the Lord might still have more difficulties to add to all our efforts and expectations.

3. The pope’s message to the general minister (September 18, 1996): see above our notes on this gift from the Holy Father, which in the context of our expectations is extremely positive.

4. The identity of the Franciscan Order at the moment of its foundation (1999): this study is familiar to everyone because it was translated into several languages and sent to all the circumscriptions of the Order. It deals with the fundamentals that need to be grasped if one is to understand what is specific, from the theological and juridical point of view, about the gospel form of life which Francis as founder devised and intended. Precisely for that reason, the study opens up some partly new horizons enabling us to identify the place that is rightfully ours and the appropriate terminology by which to designate what is “proper” to Franciscans, amidst all the diverse types of institutes identifiable today: clerical, lay, both clerical and lay (i.e., “mixed”), and those that are neither clerical nor lay, in other words, “undifferentiated” institutes which by their very nature disregard the clerical and lay character (as was the case in the way of life St. Francis put forward as founder). This is the first study of its kind ever published by the Conference of the General Ministers of the First Order and TOR, and was drafted by an inter-Franciscan commission. Cardinal Martínez Somalo, prefect of the Roman dicastery, acknowledging receipt of the study, considered it “an indispensable point of reference, a valuable tool by which to understand the ‘mind’ of the founder regarding the identity of the nascent religious family of the Franciscans” (June 30, 1999).

CONCLUSION

Some things are certain: we have come a long way, but we have not yet reached the end of the journey. There may be other difficulties awaiting us.

What impact will the official clarifications promised at the Synod on Consecrated Life (VC 61) have on this specific topic of our Franciscan identity?

We await the future faithfully, hopefully and peacefully. At the same time, our attitude is one of clear-headed responsibility and diligence in facing the challenges of our own charism, not just through research and reflection but also, and above all, through our fidelity to daily living.

Every general chapter is an exceptional moment of grace. Therefore it would be useful if this report were not just confined to being an “explanatory footnote.”

This historical summary – providentially, in our view – invites us to do four things:

• thank God for the goodness and light our Order has derived in recent decades from the joyful
struggle to rediscover its Franciscan identity;

• thank those brothers with particular responsibility who have helped the Order, at whatever
level, to understand our specific religious identity and live it more intensely;

• take the opportunity of this general chapter to confirm our journey thus far by committing
ourselves to identifying our charism, in obedience to Vatican II and the church’s magisterium;

• and above all, assure the new team of brothers called to govern and animate the Order that
they have our full fraternal support for the rest of the journey that awaits them in taking up
the challenge of our identity over the next six years.