Clare of Assisi. A gift in time: Charism and Institution

Recent studies on the Writings of Saint Clare are a valuable aid towards rediscovering the Clarian

charism, especially as it appears in the Form of Life. This short text approved on the 9th of August,

91253 by Pope Innocent IV is - for every Poor Sister - a revelation of the thought of Clare and of her

way of understanding gospel fraternity, in the footsteps of Francis; but it is also a text which, as a

Rule approved by the Church, acquires a juridical value.

The popes who have characterised the historical age in which Franciscanism was born were great

jurists (Juristenpäpste): just think of Alexander III, Innocent III or Gregory IX (and the role they

exercised with regard to I and II Orders).

The very care and solicitude of Clare in seeking to obtain approval for the Form of Life seems to

indicate a vision that was capable of holding together charismatic and juridical aspects, a thing

that is not always easy in our own day. From this reflection was born a search which has led to

discovering in the sign of the mystery of the Incarnation an aspect of the “catholic” unity lived by

Clare as openness to the Holy Spirit, author of charisms and – at the same time – life and heart of

institutions.

The Franciscan inspiration can also be described as “the form of life which seeks to render

efficacious and fruitful the balance between prophecy and institution”1. In the historical course of

the Franciscan movement it is really essential to pursue and incarnate the difficult balance

between prophecy or the charismatic aspect, and institution/institutions.

For the First Order the “franciscan question” has to do with the various ways of interpreting facts

and texts, and often one finds oneself starting with theory and then looking for confirmation of

one’s hypotheses in history. The last decades of Franciscan studies have by now abandoned the

old models in favour of a new method, which is still yielding many precious fruits.

Various factors contribute towards making very meaningful for us the experience of Clare of Assisi,

placed as she was as a kind of meeting point between diverse social and ecclesial elements: a

pathway to something new, while not renouncing pre-existing structures and forms; an evolution in

the very way of conceiving the bonds between monastery and city; a profound renewal in the

exercise of authority within the community; a record of fidelity to the intuition of the importance of

the charism – received from God through the person of Francis – a fidelity maintained to the end,

overcoming every obstacle, and reaching even to the resolution of writing a rule, the Form of Life

of the Poor Sisters.

Consequently the experience of Clare has claimed the attention of students of history who have no

apologetic interest, but use the tools of their own discipline, yielding results and raising questions

which are very important for anyone wanting to have a better knowledge of Clare of Assisi. Letting

ourselves be guided by criteria which may not be exclusively historical, but are also theological –

and particularly by the mystery of the Church, Spouse of the Word Incarnate, we may possibly be

able to find some way of gaining a more complete and unbiased vision of the relationship

between charismatic gift and some problematic sets of rules.

The concern of Clare and the sisters who joined her was for a life in imitation of Christ poor and

crucified, in which the continual tension of wanting to live “in most high poverty” is always in

relation to the person of the Incarnate Son of God, dead and risen for us. The community life of

these sisters in the monastery is the first feminine response to the new and powerful call of the

Gospel which Francis proclaimed as herald of the great King.

It is the very time in which Clare lived, XIIIth century, which presents itself both as a time of transition

towards new social stability and as the High Middle Ages, a time when abundant and varied fruits

are ripening and seeds that presage other anthropological visions and new social theories are

sprouting.

The dynamic of ‘charism and institution’ presents itself as an interpretative key, at once rich in

promise and difficult to describe. For this reason it is necessary to focus specifically on these two

poles in order better to clarify in what sense we speak of ‘institution’, and the different meanings

implied in the term ‘charism’ (sociological and theological aspects), and to pinpoint some steps in

the direction of an interpretation less dialectic and more inclusive.

I.

Let us consider, first of all, what is evoked by the term ‘institution’ in general, without losing sight of

its dynamic aspect, which is still there in the process of institutionalisation and for which the historical

elements - such as the very passing of time with its alternation of new problems and protagonists –

are essential for an understanding of the phenomena.

Every arrangement of social life can be defined as ‘institution’ insofar as community living

necessarily requires some form of organisation, whether it is a question of the family or of the state.

The law itself is an institutional form, which does not create out of nothing the rules for life together,

but recognises them as already existing and undertakes to define them more clearly in time.

Institutions have validity in law, but not by force of the law2. In the Christian life the Church and the

sacraments are necessary institutions, in that they pertain directly to our salvation3, while religious

orders are considered as free social structures, i.e. not necessary (where by ‘necessary’ is

understood what is common and constant for all).

Juridical organisation is concerned with establishing parameters and providing guarantees of

justice, but a space for research and evolution always remains open (freedom of institutional

development). Between the need to establish a common norm and individual freedom tensions

easily arise; and their resolution cannot be brought about merely by socio-political theories, which

are by nature abstract and general.

The sociology of religious life has studied the process of institutionalisation of communities, which

move from the so-called spontaneous or foundational phase (during which the charism stands out

distinctly) to the phases of first institutionalisation, consolidation and decline/reconversion.

Primitive Franciscanism – a movement of men and women – is cited as a typical example in which

these phases are well illustrated..

In a first moment the personality of a leader predominates, whose followers adopt a way of life

without rules or particular juridical concerns. In fact, the founder is the living rule. The group lives in a

strong climate of unity, as happened in the “first generation” around Francis and Clare. And initial

difficulties are resolved through the unquestioned authority of the leader. From a sociological point

of view one speaks of phases of the “sect”.

With the second generation of followers, those who have not known the charismatic founder, and

the arrival of many new recruits, there arise problems with regard to the programming of formation,

controversies about the correct interpretation of the will of the founder, difficulties on the part of

the Church which lead to greater clarification and tighter structure. In this phase there appear

strong contrasts between charismatic improvisation and the need to clarify ends and means. That

normally leads to the imposition of structures based on a written text, rule and/or constitutions. But

to preserve the focus on the spirit is not easy, simply because it requires in the one coming after the

leader the effort of discerning what belongs to the heart of the charism and what depends on

changing conditions of time. With too long a delay in adapting to the times, one runs the risk of

presenting to the world a static and lifeless image which does not attract new members and fails to

find the appropriate words to proclaim the Gospel to its contemporaries.

The so-called ‘institutional consolidation’ phase begins with the accepting of juridical norms which

become the life channel of the Institute, moving the group in the direction of bureaucratisation, the

weakening of spontaneity, routine. In this phase communities are recognised and accepted by

society, they are respected, they expand geographically and their influence grows.

Lastly, the phase of ‘decline and reconversion’ is characterised by the desire to review the goals of

the Institute, its means and its structures. This can well be an internal self-criticism, taking account

also of external influences (historical changes, technical or cultural progress, etc.) which act as

incentives to reconversion. Unless they succeed in recapturing the charismatic aspect, the Institutes

can easily decline and die out, while others survive with difficulty and suffering; and only those with

healthier (sociological) roots succeed in recommencing a new life cycle.

The problem which emerges from this general picture is: how to succeed in maintaining the

charismatic energy, returning to the inspiration of the origins, while confronting the necessity of

having to move forward with the organisation into structured forms? Fidelity to the inspiration of the

founder seems to run counter to inevitable development. Indeed, all religious Institutes or Orders

have found themselves having to face the problems of the delegation of authority, the

accumulation of goods, the construction of large buildings, ownership, study and the acquisition of

titles, etc

Keeping in mind indications given from sociology and the historical perspective, one can hope for

a better understanding of the functioning of institutes, the means by which they stay alive, enter

into crises, and renew themselves4.

The interdisciplinary perspective invites us to look at the evolution of the religious Orders in a

comparative way, assessing institutional forms not just as means of organisation, but in relation to

the development of “key ideas” (Leitidee) and of value systems and norms.

As early as the end of XI century there began a process of diversification of religious life, with more

observances, customs, Orders; and this process continued until XII century. Together with the

flowering of Franciscanism and the other mendicant Orders, one must recall at least the canons

regular and the eremitical groups. In all of them was found the strong desire of a “new beginning”,

which often sought its models in the forms of the primitive Church: the life of the apostles.

As for the fathers of monasticism, so also for these new apostles, it was found necessary to preserve

in writing their texts, rules, customs, observances... In fact, it was only reference to the text of a

“rule” which ensured the maintenance of fidelity to the initial charismatic intuition and was,

moreover, a common instrument of formation for all.

At the death of the founder there arose the problem of how to manage the next critical phase. A

system of norms – based on common consent – had to be drawn up and settled for all. It is

important to bear in mind that in many cases community approval was sought for these norms,

after the example of the Cistercian Order, which had elaborated a system based on a

cooperatively formulated law, with the celebration of general chapters and visitation in the

individual monasteries. In fact, Lateran Council IV itself drew inspiration for its legislation for religious

from Cistercian norms; and this was also to be the line followed by Gregory IX.

For Francis, as for Clare, all those who are called by the Lord to share their forma di vita in the

following of Christ are equal; they are brothers and sisters and no one is “superior” but simply

servant. In the Writings there appears a preoccupation for those who will come after. Moreover, the

interest shown by the popes in the evolution of the Orders can also be seen in the perspective of

finding ways of moving away from the personal charismatic influence of the founder in favour of a

constitution based on the intrinsic meaning of the office.

The very first legislative texts, which were written well within the charismatic phase, could not take

into account all future circumstances, given the complexity of the problems which - for Clare -

affect not only the internal relationships within the community and the ‘catholic’ bond with the

Roman curia, but also the relationship of ‘the little plant of Francis’ with the First Order.

Daily life brings to light new problems which call for modifications in the legislation. This process has

been studied in depth in the case of the Rules of Francis5; from this it is clear that the process of

establishing an order could not be completed with the single act of foundation. On the contrary, it

included a long phase of permanent reform and modification, throughout the course of which the

central core, regarded as important, was put into practice and maintained. That brought with it

the need to react to the unforeseen, to replace general inadequacies with something seen as

more useful, to tighten prescriptions or even to loosen norms that were too rigid, so as to make

them worthy of respect6.

In each phase of the growth of religious Orders one experiences the parallel growth of legislation;

and, particularly in recent years, this process assumes ever more “democratic” characteristics

involving more people, through the instrument of the chapter. What is discussed in common is then

committed in various ways to writing, so that it remains as a witness and guideline for those who will

come after.

The community experiences itself as a single corpo, modelled on the Church, and lives its own

specific charism, seeking its expression in a system of norms which spontaneously foster the birth of

a common language among the members of the group. Thus it is possible to pass from the

guidance of a single person – the founder – to the “transpersonal” phase, which has its own

objective law.

From the historical point of view, it has been noted how particularly appropriate this solution is,

bringing with it a considerable flexibility and the ability to deal with new problems which arise7.

Moreover, the different orders and forms of religious associations of this medieval epoch have

manifested a great richness and variety of institutional forms and concrete ways of common life,

with the ability to confront the varied problems of the time. The new Orders find the way to live their

own charism in keeping with their own values: that is, differently from other communities. But over

and above this aspect of a specific spirituality, one can recognize new elements in the normative

and organisational structure which reveal important aspects of the same charism. The Franciscan

way of living authority is the most immediate example.

Therefore, in speaking of institutions, it seems possible to distinguish three levels, according to

whether the accent is put on what has to do with the process of social organisation guided by the

ideal of justice, or whether one is describing some concrete forms of institution over time (such as

forms of participation in authority adopted by the religious), or finally whether the emphasis is put

on the more practical phase in which specific and definite juridical texts are put down in writing

(institutiones-instituta).

In its first meaning institution can be defined as: a basic form or structure of social organisation

characterised by duration and identity in time (independently of the will of the participants), by an

impersonal physiognomy and by a variable balance between the organisational factors and the

values or services which constitute the object and motivation of the institution8.

In the historical period which forms the background to the vicissitudes of Clare and her first

companions, we witness the transition from evangelical ordines (in which distinctions between

Christians were drawn according to categories such as “martyrs”, “witnesses”, “widows”, “orphans”

...) to ordines which refer rather to a social condition (“priests”, “merchants”, “soldiers” ... 9).

Christians are divided with ever more juridical precision into clerical and lay, with the addition of

the “new” category of religious. The clerics and the universities control the scholastic system, the

popes themselves are most reputable jurists and the use of the Latin language facilitates bonds

within Christianity. In addition to this, as GIUSEPPE ALBERIGO points out, the rediscovery of the works

of Aristotle validates the political dimension of society and hence the pursuit of new ways of living

as Christians in the world10.

With regard to the second level, in the consecrated life institutions are at the service of the unity of

a religious family in that they make possible the integration of the charism into time. In the period

with which we are concerned, for example, it would be interesting to trace the historical route

towards the definition of the three vows of obedience, poverty and chastity.

Being “catholics”, always submissive and subject at the feet of the same holy Church, according to

the expression of Clare at the end of her Form of Life, is a necessity which is not opposed to

charismatic freedom (as in various contemporary forms of heresy), but which rather illustrates a

natural evolution of it; discernment comes with the collaboration of the ecclesiastical authority.

“Thanks to the intervention of this latter there is validated a distinction of autonomy of the charism

within the ambit of the communio ecclesiarum, not sought or claimed solely by the possibility of

interaction with history, but as a mandate of responsibility so that the distinction can be seen as

ecclesial. Indeed, such approval is given in recognition of a “ foundational charism” whose

acquired institutional subjectivity constitutes its meaning, or the possibility-responsibility of an

ecclesial praxis11.

The charism, given by the Holy Spirit to a founder, is not exhausted at the death of that founder, but

lives on in time in the members of the religious Order. The Church does not offer only a formal

approval – as requested at the birth of a new charism – but always invites the religious to live with

an ecclesial vision, remembering that every charism is for the common good

Some aspects of the juridical system, then, depend on the type of social organisation in which the

religious are actually living. Civil society promotes values and norms of behaviour and makes, even

if only implicitly, certain demands. In this perspective there arises the problem of Gospel witness, of

how to make intelligible Christian values mediated through different structures. Therefore it is a

matter of being in the world but not of the world and of manifesting the prophetic aspect of the

religious life in every period of history because for the Christian the eschatological dwells in the

heart of history, in the christological event; and it is what makes possible the reality of human history

and also has as charism the particular task of eschatological witness placed, so to speak, in the

very heart of history and of the mission of the Church12.

In the Forma Vitae of Clare of Assisi immediately after the first chapter which treats of the

evangelical life in obedience to the Pope and to Francis, comes the description of how a new sister

is to be received. Already here Clare wants the abbess to be bound to ask the consent of all the

sisters; and if the majority give their consent, she may receive her, having obtained the consent of

our lord cardinal protector13. The norm here is obviously at the service of sisterly communion, as

throughout the entire text of the Rule. The laws are at the service of real life, they are “rule” in the

sense in which Francis speaks of rule: This, he said, is the book of life, the hope of salvation, the

marrow of the Gospel, the way of perfection, the key of paradise, the pact of an eternal covenant.

He wanted all to have the text of it, to know it very well, and to make it always the subject of

meditation for the inner man, as an encouragement in weariness and as a reminder of sworn

promises14.

The forms of the sharing of authority can be varied. Besides chapter, in which problems are

discussed and decisions taken together, there is also – for Clare – the office of “discreets”, sisters

who are to advise the abbess when decisions are to be made about the form of life and the

welfare of the community15.

So we finally come to the third aspect under which “institution” is understood, relating to the

collection of norms which are fixed in writing. Lateran Council IV recognized in its canons the co-

presence of regulam et institutionem16. The attempt to organise and regulate the religious orders

did not produce uniformity of legislation, for which we find – in different periods of history – different

solutions; and much space is left for particular customs and traditions. After the approval of the

Rule of Saint Benedict in the West monastic communities multiplied and, with the passing of the

centuries, revealed marked differences. Therefore, while relying on the same Benedictine Rule, it

also became necessary to record the traditions and customs proper to each religious family. The

term institutio takes its origin from Saint Benedict of Aniane, the great organiser of monastic life (VIII-

IX century). Thus in X-XII century we find quite a clear distinction between two different legislative

texts: the one sacred and immutable, the rule of St. Benedict; the other more practical, traditional

but amendable, in other words the customs, their chief redactor being Benedict of Aniane. From

Cluny the distinction between rule and institution spread throughout the entire West17.

At the birth of Franciscanism the legislation was still valid according to which religious – in order to

be classed as such – had to adopt one of the traditional rules (Augustinian, Basilian or

Benedictine)18.

The institutions – or customs – acquired their own juridical meaning (distinct, however, from the

rules) as early as IX century, with Benedict of Aniane. The distinction remained somewhat fluid up till

the time of the development of Cluny (X-XII century), even if, in the official documents of the

Church and in decretals this clarification is not immediately reflected. It became the norm to

include with observance of the rule, that of particular institutions, the more so as Lateran Council II

(1139) in canon 26 had defined the principle according to which there could be no religious life

without reference to one of the great rules19.

The approved Rule (R.B.) of Francis took some decades before it was accepted as equal to the

great early rules; and we know that the evolution of the legislation for the Poor Clares also went

through this process. Indeed it can be said that the acceptance of the Franciscan Rule of 1223

was finally due – over and above the importance of the Order – to the fact that the popes

intervened personally in the process of interpretation, both concerning poverty, and for other

determining aspects20.

The current Code of Canon Law is not concerned with defining the differences between “rule” and

“constitutions”, preferring to leave room for particular customs, as today there can be various

religious families stemming from the same rule while adopting dissimilar constitutions. So, in a certain

sense, it is a valid principle which distinguishes between what relates to the initial charism and is

expressed in the rule in an almost immutable form and what is subject to change according to the

historical period and is codified in texts subject to revision, such as constitutions or collections of

customs or observances21.

Legislative texts and juridical norms are one of the forms in which a charism is expressed. This way of

revealing a new gift of the Holy Spirit in the Church – that is through the language of the law –

occurs throughout the history of religious life, even though it is easy to find critics who contrast the

charismatic moment with the institutional one22.

Within the ambit of the religious life, where the spiritual or prophetic element and the organisational

or institutional one are always and evidently high priorities, the effort of an assiduous discernment

should avoid falling into extreme positions such as that held by the liberation theologian Leonardo

Boff and those who, like him, end up polemically contrasting not only the concept of charism with

that of law, but also the charismatic actions of the faithful (“ex spiritu”) with the exercise of

ecclesiastical authority (“ex officio”), and the existence of a “prophetic Church” as against the so-

called “juridical”, “powerful” and “triumphalistic” Church23.

The reflection of theologians and canonists on the real nature of canon law has made it possible to

clarify its origin in the mystery of the Church in relation to justice, which is one of the dimensions of

the sacraments: for Vatican Council II the charismatic reality and the institutional reality are

inseparable; in fact, canonical legislation aims to reflect in an ever clearer way the true nature of

the Church. Number 8 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentum affirms that the model for this

unity is the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word:

Lumen gentium n. 8

Unicus Mediator Christus Ecclesiam suam sanctam, fidei, spei et caritatis communitatem his in terris ut

compaginem visibilem constituit et indesinenter sustentat, qua veritatem et gratiam ad omnes diffundit.

Societas autem organis hierarchicis instructa et mysticum Christi Corpus, coetus adspectabilis et communitas

spiritualis, Ecclesia terrestris et Ecclesia caelestibus bonis ditata, non ut duae res considerandae sunt, sed

unam realitatem complexam efformant, quae humano et divino coalescit elemento. Ideo ob non mediocrem

analogiam incarnati Verbi mysterio assimilatur. Sicut enim natura assumpta Verbo divino ut vivum organum

salutis, Ei indissolubiliter unitum, inservit, non dissimili modo socialis compago Ecclesiae Spiritui Christi, eam

vivificanti, ad augmentum corporis inservit.

Christ, the one Mediator, established and ceaselessly sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of

faith, hope, and charity, as a visible structure. Through her he communicates truth and grace to all. But the

society furnished with hierarchical agencies and the Mystical Body of Christ are not to be considered as two

realities, nor the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched

with heavenly things. Rather they form one interlocked reality which is comprised of a divine and a human

element. For this reason, by an excellent analogy, this reality is compared to the mystery of the Incarnate

Word. Just as the assumed nature inseparably united to the divine Word serves him as a living instrument of

salvation, so, in a similar way, does the communal structure of the Church serve Christ’s Spirit, who vivifies it by

way of building up the body.

The way of mediation – which is by no means a way of “compromise” – makes it possible to avoid

the risks of a radicalisation which would exclude one of the two aspects and would lead to

“heretical” types of solutions, similar to what happens when one of the natures of Christ is

absolutised in an exclusive way.

Many founders have chosen to use an obviously juridical language, accepting the inevitable

tension between the expression of ideals and their practical manifestation in the real life of the

social group of their followers.

As far as this choice is concerned in Clare and in Francis – let alone in the numerous other

contemporary founders – we note that this can also be explained by the respect which the

ecclesiastical milieu and the papacy had for the law. The ecclesial vision in the heart of the Middle

Ages was strongly hierarchical24.

The way chosen by God to realise his plan of salvation was to create a perfect union of what

seemed incompatible: eternity and time, infinity and fragility, divinity and humanity. This can almost

be seen as a “style”, or rather as the method – the way – privileged and always reconfirmed in the

signs of salvation (the sacraments). The Spirit is always active in Jesus, accompanying him and

establishing the economy of salvation25. But, while Jesus was completely free and docile to the

action of the Spirit, for us – sinners as we are – it doesn’t come spontaneously to recognise the

language of the Spirit when it is impersonally spoken in the form of the institution: in the Church the

objective face of the Spirit will be able to reveal itself through the harshness of everything

institutional in the Church which becomes a defence against all attempts to reduce the eucharistic

gift to the measure of us sinners: insofar as the Church is always imperfect and sinful, which Christ

was not, the economic objectivisation of the Spirit can seemingly assume a legalistic form which is

even more strongly demanding26.

The theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar has spoken of the two aspects – the subjective or

charismatic and the objective or institutional – seeing them represented in the figures of Mary and

Peter. The objective moment in which we find Church law, the normative value of the liturgy,

theology (in some aspects) and the structure of ministry, can be classified as “petrine principle”.

The “marian principle” on the other hand comprises the subjective aspects, the pure holiness which

comes from grace and precedes the petrine principle.

Theological reflection is essential in order to realise that the organisational or structural aspects of

social institutions and those of the Church can be very similar – both in their ends and sometimes

also in their means – but there always remains a profound difference owing to the fact that the

Church is born from the action of the Spirit of God. Images of the Church – the various

ecclesiologies – are subject to the influence of time and history, but it is important always to bear in

mind that: in short, ecclesiastical institutions cannot be considered in themselves as opposite to or

even a negation of spirituality: but, on the contrary, they are very much in harmony with it, sharing

a common basis in ecclesiology27.

II.

The charism characterises in a particular way the founding and initial moment of the forms of

religious life; looking at religious life as a form of community life, historians and sociologists have

formulated important theories on the relationship between charism and institution. The common

reference is to the works of the philosopher and sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) who, in

illustration of his theories, refers explicitly to the history of the primitive Church. It seems useful to

present here at least a few points of Weber’s interpretation, because his historical approach opens

up an interdisciplinary perspective which yields much fruit.

In life together manifold relationships can be created within the group, among them the one

defined as “charismatic”28. Weber studies the phenomenon of charism not only in relation to the

religious sphere, but also in relation to political praxis and the functions of leadership present in

every human group.

In the analysis of legitimate authority, in addition to authority defined as ‘charismatic’, we also find

authority of a ‘rational-legal’ and ‘traditional’ type. While legal authority is based on rationality and

operates as administrative or civil law – tending of its nature to take on an ever more imposing

bureaucratic form – traditional authority depends rather on customary law (going back to a

method of procedure adopted in the past).

But charismatic authority is tied to the action of an individual person and receives its validity from

acceptance on the part of the group of followers. Therefore: legitimacy is closely bound to the

individual person as such, and this not in virtue of the past or the established order and in this sense

charismatic authority is extraordinary and revolutionary in so far as it introduces a previously non-

existent element. It is the validity of the charism which elicits the spontaneous recognition of the

subjects, often associated with a proof, a miracle, such as a diagnosis and cure for a problem of

the community or of the tribe (elements which are often met with and used in anthropological

studies)29.

One of the aspects emphasised by Weber in the description of charismatic authority concerns the

fact that the charism functions in an “anti-economic” way: in the charismatic moment the use of

money is rejected and there is no administrative apparatus. This ‘enthusiastic’ phase is short-lived

and very quickly evolves into forms which Weber defines as “routinisation” or “everydayness”

(Alltäglichkeit) of the charism.

The charism tends to transform itself into one of the two forms described above (rationalisation and

traditionalisation) also because the bond between the leader and his/her disciples stabilises with

time and with the additional need for economic organisation.

The increase in the number of followers, such as occurred in the first decades of Franciscanism, calls

for a complex organisation. We have also encountered this phase of crisis in Clarean history, with

the corresponding interventions of the popes who urged Clare to accept fixed revenues and

landed property.

Along with the “everydayness” of the charism (with its aspects of routine), we also find an

objectivisation, necessary as the person of the charismatic founder is no longer there and the

charism has to be transmitted to others if the group as such is to survive. Of course a new

community spontaneously forms its own “rites”, adopts common symbols and uses a language

which seeks out expressions proper to the “sect”, creates new traditions. So it can be said that

institutionalisation is the result of the objectivisation and everydayness of the charism. The moment

of the death of the founder is understandably a moment of crisis in which it is necessary to confront

the problem of how to preserve the charism and ensure a succession which will be recognised

(only an authority that will be recognised as ‘legitimate’ is an effective authority). Weber reads the

history of the primitive Christian community as a passage from the charismatic sect to the Church,

which represents the institutionalised form of a religious experience. The progressive

institutionalisation of the charism is therefore revealed as a structure for survival and is inevitable30.

The charism is a moment of renewal of traditions which elevates the founding values to first place

and appeals to the noblest sentiments of the persons involved, calling forth new energies.

However, it is important to note that - in considering the charismatic phenomenon from the

historical-theological point of view (as well as from the sociological perspective) - the role of the

Church does not correspond exactly to that described by Max Weber. Indeed, according to

Weber, the Church is an organisational structure which tends to oppose the charism, so much so

that already in western monasticism and in the Rule of St. Benedict we had an example of the

rationalisation of the charism. In fact, the Church itself introduces changes and promotes new

forms of life in common, also supporting the growth of diverse charisms of consecrated life31.

With regard, then, to the “extraordinary and revolutionary” aspect of the charism, it is of course

necessary to acknowledge the impact of the ‘novelty’, but for all that, it cannot be maintained

that every charism is revolutionary. This was certainly not the case in the Middle Ages, when (beside

prophets, heretics and rebels) there lived great charismatic founders – like Francis, Clare and

Dominic – who did not oppose the Church, but served and loved it32.

In the same epoch in which Franciscanism was born it is particularly obvious that some of the

religious institutes were created by “charismatic” people. The Franciscan Rule (and with it also that

of Clare) stems directly from the Gospel; but for all that it does not avoid the mediation of

canonical norms and other means of organising fraternal life. So in things such as precedence,

monasticism, it was obvious that – especially in periods when vocations were more plentiful – the

drawing up of written law occurred very quickly33.

Therefore we find here, as a distinguishing mark, the importance to be attributed to the role of the

Church. A vision of Protestant origin34, rather than a Catholic ecclesiology, influences in a decisive

way the complexion and also the very formulation of problems.

Now we can pinpoint and more clearly distinguish the difference between the two meanings of

“charism”, which must not be superimposed or confused: charism in a sociological sense and

charism in a theological sense.

The way in which “charism” is used in sociology does not refer to the action of the Spirit but is a

phenomenological description of some aspects of charismatic authority associated with an

individual35. While using many examples and concepts drawn from the history of Christian origins,

what is the centre of interest here is the functioning of society with the passage from a type of

“extraordinary” authority to the bureaucratisation of the “everyday”. In this way prophecy and law,

charism and institution, can easily be seen as opposites.

On the other hand, in studying the charismatic phenomenon within the Church, other aspects

must be considered (for example, those which occur in cultural anthropology or ethnology) but –

above all – one cannot prescind from reference to ecclesiology and the action of the Holy Spirit.

And so some authors distinguish the discourse on “charism” from that on “charisms” as gifts of God

to the Church36. However, speaking of the specific gift which applies to the founders of new

religious families – and thinking in particular of Francis and Clare – we find ourselves face to face

with a personal witness, with an amalgam of charismatic and “extraordinary” phenomena, for

which it is valuable for us to avail of some indications offered by social science. Moreover, this kind

of approach is of great help in dealing with the “Franciscan question”, introducing precisely those

universal parameters which help to situate the figures of the founders within a more general

context. One example could be the avoidance of the use of money, which we find with Francis,

but not in the same way with Clare.

We have seen how the Church and the forms of religious life always have an element which deals

with the organisation of authority; it can even be said that: throughout the course of history, religion

appears as an institution which generates social values, group integration and cohesion much

more effectively than the State, whose coercive power would often not be capable of maintaining

alone the obligatory nature of burdensome social laws and sacrifices. (…) On the basis of all that,

the principal social function of religion would be integrative, and protective of social unity – without

excluding the fact that, every so often, such a large conservative force could become warlike and

fratricidal. Indeed, in times of strong economic, cultural and ideological change, when not all

share the same beliefs, religion can perform an innovative and directly revolutionary role, which

has more features in common with social disintegration than with social conservation37.

In general, however, the forms of religious life are regarded as examples of excellent institutional

organisation: this is particularly apparent in relation to the medieval period in which we are

interested. We have already had occasion to point out the value which historians attribute to the

forms of religious life in XI-XIII centuries.

In studying the first decades of the life of the Order of the Poor Sisters and of Franciscanism in

general, it is important to accept the invitation coming to us from the historians to adopt a method

of comparative analysis, which also includes reflection on the characteristics of charismatic

leadership, on the structures of religious life, and on relationships between the individual and his/her

fraternity.

We can ask ourselves up to what point we find in Saint Clare the elements which define a

charismatic personality in a sociological sense. In fact the Franciscan sources describe the

personality of Clare as that of a woman endowed with great human charm and capable of

relating without any inferiority complex to the powerful figures of her time. The evangelical

experience and the person of Clare herself attract many young women of Assisi who follow her in

the adventure of the new form of life at San Damiano. On the other hand, it is the hagiographical

sources and, above all the Writings of Clare herself, which reveal to us an exceptional novelty in the

way of sharing authority among all the sisters. The style of service – modelled on the Gospel after

the example of Francis – inspires Clare to be “abbess and mother”, because it ought so to be that

the abbess is the servant of all the sisters.38

The same radical form of highest poverty for which Clare struggled throughout the whole of her life

does not prevent her from using money to provide for the needs of the sisters, whereas Francis – in

his Rule – had forbidden this39.

The prudent balance between charismatic aspects in a sociological sense and charismatic

aspects in an ecclesiological sense also appears in other forms. Among them, of course, is the very

choice of living a Gospel life in its “regular” form (that is, by adopting also the language of the

juridical texts). But we can also include in this choice the desire to live as faithful followers and

interpreters of Francis without yielding to polemical enticements, and knowing how to maintain

relations with the authorities of the Order and of the hierarchical Church.

Finally, another moment of synthesis can be discerned in the presence of that factor - typically

“charismatic” - constituted by the miracles (in life and after death) which are highlighted by the

hagiographers (filtered according to their respective agendas), but which in Clare occur as

obvious witness to compassion and love rather than as extraordinary signs of power.

The charism of Clare is certainly not removed from “daily life” but is manifested in humility and

poverty, in the solicitude of sharing with all the sisters and in making herself a servant and example

(mirror) in seeking the face of Jesus. A gaze fixed on the Lord is capable of contemplating him in his

extreme humiliation on the cross as well as in the glorious radiance of the King of kings. This is the

source of profound unity in the life of Clare and her companions: the glory of God recognised not

only in the risen Lord but also in the poor Crucified and in the Baby of Bethlehem.

Turning our attention now to the charismatic origins, we can make the following observation: a

religious experience which leads to the creation of a new group (but this also holds good for

reforms in consecrated life) usually begins with features of the extraordinary and absence of

method and then grows towards “everydayness”, to the point of creating new patterns of social

organisation – very functional – which gain for the group recognition and esteem.

This passage constitutes part of the process of institutionalisation of charisms; but it differs according

to the religious families, to the extent that we find it already diversified in the case of the first

followers of Francis and in Clare with her sisters40.

The novelty of Franciscanism, compared with monasticism, is not to be sought in the direction of an

opposition to or a denial of the past, but appears rather as a return to the same Gospel sources

which nourished the monastic reforms of XI and XII centuries. Of the new Franciscan monks it can

be said that: they are still monks in their individual and conventual religious life, while orientating it

towards apostolic purposes. They draw from previous institutional developments of monasticism

organisational norms for life. They connect closely with the inspirations and priorities of the itinerant

preachers and promoters of the evangelical-apostolic movement – and sometimes the heretical

ones – of XII century rejected or strongly circumscribed by ecclesiastical authority. They re-absorb

them drawing them into the Church, structure them into huge “Orders” of apostolic life placed at

the service of the laity of the time and of the “catholic” works of the Holy See. In short, they

represent the largest religious movement of renewal of XIII to XV century within the western Church,

which takes its place with monasticism as an alternative form of religious life and with the secular

clergy, specially in the cities, with a pastoral activity closely allied with the “vita apostolica”,

achieving a solid christian renewal of the life of the laity, but without reforming the obsolete

structures of the ecclesiastical apparatus, built on power and wealth41.

The reference to the Gospel which both Francis and Clare place at the beginning of their rules

gives us to understand how important it was for them not to supplant the word of the Gospel but to

be lifelong disciples of it, even in the most practical everyday aspects of community organisation

and in the choice of Gospel expressions above others.

There is no question of theoretical statements used to legitimise the rules by pointing out their

scriptural foundation. If a point turns up repeatedly in monastic writings it is from the conviction of

the monks or nuns that the source of their whole way of life is the Bible. And because of their

continual recourse to it they constitute a society different from that of the world in general, but

internally homo-geneous. (...) Rules are not exclusive texts, but complementary to the one and only

great rule, which is the Scripture. This explains how it can seem normal to read and compare

various rules, then blend or paraphrase them, selecting extracts and precepts from them42.

This last observation confirms how close Clare is to the monastic way of understanding the rule.

There are certainly no problems for her in adopting a style of composition which freely integrates

various texts, adding to or modifying them according to her own charismatic inspiration. Moreover,

we also find in the Clarean text various sections with a tone more exhortatory than juridical in the

strict sense – a thing which is common with monastic legislators, as SALVATORE PROCOCO again

asserts: The principal features of the early rules indicate their lack of legislative force. Many of them

are very short and their norms are often incomplete regarding the requirements of community

organisation; they sometimes give more space to monastic theory or ethico-religious reflection that

to concrete norms; often enough their tone is paternal and informal, unsuitable and inadequate for

any sort of disciplinary purpose, more suitable for adhortationes than for legislative texts. In a word,

these western rules often resemble writings of ascetical exhortation, or exempla to be placed

among the edifying “readings” of the monk more closely than binding and dogmatic codes43.

The renewal of the monastic orders, in progress during the decades before the birth of

Franciscanism, had found strong support in the rediscovery of the centrality of the word of God,

often indicated with specific reference to the Gospel, the “one and only” book of life of the monk.

This essential characteristic was no novelty on the part of the reformers, but simply a return to the

sources of early monasticism. A constant in this pursuit is the value of fraternal life lived as a school

of charity and humility.

It would also be important to deepen the relationship between universal legislation and the

autonomy of the monastic and mendicant Orders. Autonomy can be understood as exemption

with regard to the bishops in whose territory the monasteries were situated. Exemption is an

important aspect of the care of monasteries which the papacy assumed directly; and it is

accompanied by a movement of centralisation and reorganisation, as is seen in the new norms

which are at present being prepared for monastic congregations.

Within this monastic trend may be included the fact that Clare decided to compose a text of her

own to offer to the sisters. Indeed it was normal for monasteries not only to accept an already

known rule, but also to quote from several rules, always giving precedence to the following of

Christ, and to real life over written law. The western juridical tradition, however, seeks to keep in

mind the value of the person; and the law should always be at the service of life.

Therefore, the short text of the Form of Life composed by Saint Clare lends itself particularly to a

study which would consider together its elements of novelty and those which continue to flow from

the spirituality and legislation of the religious life.

For this reason it seemed important to gather together here some reflections which could make a

small contribution to the desire for better knowledge of an ecclesial charism which the Spirit has

given to the Church, and which is still alive today in many communities of the Poor Sisters of Saint

Clare.

At the heart of our reflections we rediscover the mystery of the Incarnation – as indicated in the

succinct text of Lumen gentium 8 – which offers a principle of method for expressing at one and

the same time unity and diversity. But, as in Jesus the Incarnation is in view of the paschal mystery of

death and resurrection, so also in the history of the Church and the religious Orders the central

point is the insuperable dynamism of cross and resurrection. 1. HANS ZOLLNER, La vita comunitaria negli Ordini religiosi, in “la Civiltà Cattolica” 2006 IV, n. 3754, pp. 344-356. The author specifies: “The Benedictine Rule allots due measure to the life of prayer and to community life; the Franciscan inspiration seeks for an efficacious and fruitful balance between prophecy and institution; the Ignatian perspective aims at a synthesis between contemplation and action”, p. 345. 2. Cf. entry “Istituzione” in Dizionario del Cattolicesimo nel mondo moderno, ed. R. WENDELIN (Italian ed. PIERO ROSSANO) , Paoline, Rome 1964, pp. 371-372. For the stages of the process of institutionalisation cf. ANGEL A. RODRIGUEZ – .JOAN M. CANALS CASAS (ed.) , Italian ed. TULLO GOFFI and ACHILLE PALAZZINI, Dizionario Teologico della Vita Consacrata,

Ancora , Milan, 1994. Entry “Sociologia” of GERARDO PASTOR RAMOS. 3. “Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, and its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of men over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognised man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man”, Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2244 (and cf. also nn .671 and 1881), Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1992.

4. This type of study is being carried out at the University of Dresden Centre Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) 537. Confining our attention to primitive Franciscanism, we gather some interesting observations of GERT MELVILLE. Cf. Alcune osservazioni sui processi di istituzionalizzazione della vita religiosa nei secoli XII e XIII in “Benedictina”, XLVIII (2001), pp. 371-394. Available

also in digital form in ”Reti Medievali”: www.retimedievali.it. pp.371-394. 5. For example cf. the study of FELICE ACCROCCA – ANTONIO CICERI, Francesco e i suoi frati. La Regola non bullata: una regola in cammino, Biblioteca Francescana, Milan, 1998. 6. “Alcune osservazioni sui processi di istitutionalizzazione della vita religiosa nei secoli XII and XIII” (see note 4), p. 9. 7. For example: “Monastic rules are spiritual texts suitable for guiding the person, but also orientated in a completely pragmatic way to the organisation of daily life. Under the aspect of a juridical system, monastic rules decide on the acceptance of new members, the assignment of the charges of monastic offices, the administration of financial resources, the distribution of clothing and tools for work, the order of the day, etc. (...) No other form of life aims so stringently at complete institutionalisation as does the religious life,

nor does any other achieve this goal to such a high degree”. Cf. GERT MELVILLE, Nuove tendenze della storiografia monastica di area tedesca, in ANDENNA GIANCARLO (ed.), Dove va la storiografia monastica in Europa? Temi e metodi di ricerca per lo studio della vita monastica e regolare in età medievale alle soglie del terzo millennio. Atti del Convegno internazionale Brescia-Rodengo, 23-25 marzo 2000, Vita e Pensiero (Storia. Ricerche), Milan, 2001, pp. 41-42 8. GIUSEPPE ALBERIGO, La Chiesa nella storia, Paideia, Brescia. 1988, p.84 9. Cf. JACQUES LE GOFF, L’uomo medievale, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 1987; and from the same author – Il cielo sceso in terra. Le radici medievali dell’Europa, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 2004. 10. GIUSEPPE ALBERIGO, La Chiesa nella storia (as in note 8), p. 96. 11. PIER LUIGI NAVA, entry “Istituzioni di vita consacrata religiosa” in Supplemento al Dizionario Teologico della Vita Consacrata (ed. GIAN FRANCO POLI), ANCORA, Milan, 2003, p. 183. 12. PAOLO MARTINELLI, Vocazione e stati di vita del cristiano. Riflessioni sistematiche in dialogo con Hans Urs von Balthasar, Laurentianum, Rome, 2001, Pp. 385-386. 13. R.Cl. II,1-2; Fonti Francescane 2754, ed. ERNESTO CAROLI, Editrici Francescane, Padua, 2004. 14. 2Cel 208; Fonti Francescane 797 (as in 13 above). 15. We note that, according to Clare, the abbess “is bound” to involve them in the principal decisions: R.Cl. IV, 23: At least eight sisters are to be elected from among the more prudent, of whom the abbess is bound always to take counsel about those things which our form of life requires. Fonti Francescane 2782 (see n. 13) Cf. also FEDERATION OF ST. CLARE OF ASSISI OF THE POOR

CLARES OF UMBRIA-SARDINIA, Chiara di Assisi e la sue fonti legislative. Sinossi cromatica (Secundum perfectionem sancti evangelii. La forma di vita dell’Ordine delle Sorelle povere, 1), Messaggero, Padua, 2003, p.56. With regard to Francis, his “Admonitions” could well have been the fruit of a summary given by him at the end of chapter gatherings of the friars. The link between the text of the Admonitions and the non-approved Rule (1221) has already been pointed out and studied. So we can affirm that – in this process going from discussion in chapter through the summary of Francis to the formulaton of a rule – we can see clearly the connection between the charismatic element and the final legislative text. Cf. also FEDERATION OF ST. CLARE OF ASSISI, La Forma di vita dell’Ordine delle Sorelle povere, Vol. II, Chiara di Assisi. Una vita prende forma. Iter storico, Messaggero, Padua, 2005, Vol. III Il Vangelo come Forme di Vita. In ascolto di Chiara nella sua Regola, Messaggero, Padua, 2007. 16. “Whoever wishes to establish a new religious house must accept the rule and institution of an approved religious order”, cons t. 13. 17. J. DUBOIS, entry “Institutio” in: PELLICCIA GUERRINO-ROCCA GIANCARLO (ed.), Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione, Paoline, Rome, 1974-2003, coll. 1718-1732. 18. E.g. At Lateran Council II (1139) the following was decreed: “We command the abolition of the dangerous and detestable custom, current among certain women who want to be considered as nuns, even though they do not live under the rule of Blessed Benedict or Basil or Augustine”. Quoted by J. DUBOIS, Ibid. 19. Cf. J. DUBOIS, entry “Institutio” in Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione (as in note 17), coll. 1721-1722. 20. Cf. on this point: PRIAMO ETZI, Iuridica franciscana, Percorsi monografici di storia della legislazione dei tre Ordini francescani,

(Studi francescani/5), Messaggero, PADUA, 2005 21. “To protect more faithfully the vocation and identity of individual institutes, the fundamental code or constitutions of each of them must contain, in addition to what is established as compulsory in Canon 578, the basic norms relating to governance of the institute and the discipline of its members, to their incorporation and formation, and also to the proper object of their sacred bonds”, Code of Canon Law. 587. The cited canon 578 states: “The intention and projects of founders, approved by the competent ecclesiastical authority, regarding the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, as well as its sound traditions, things which constitute its patrimony, must be faithfully guarded by all.” 22. Well before Protestantism we find this position upheld, for example, in William of Ockham, according to which the juridical

norms of the Church come not from reason or faith, but rather from the will of the clergy. The same thesis was upheld by the Lutheran canonist Rudolf Sohm, who opposes the Church as spiritual community to the Church of law. According to the Protestant theologian (and Church historian) Adolf von Harnack, the Church is concerned to secure its power and depends on dogma and law to achieve this end. Cf. JULIAN HERRANZ, Il Diritto Canonico, perché? Lecture at the Catholic University of Milan, 29 April 2002. Available: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/re_pc_intrptxt_doc_20020429_diritto-canonico_it.htm#top. 23. JULIAN HERRANZ, Il Diritto Canonico, perché? (as in note 22). 24. A “hierarchical” structure – of itself – does not prevent spiritual and mystical expression, as is quite clear, for example, in the writings of the Franciscan Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. 25. “In such soteriological modalisation of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit is found the origin of all that can theologically be designated as “institution”: it is a metamorphosis of love, there where it is achieved in a absolute way in the “economic” Trinity, HANS URS VON BALTHASAR, Lo Spirito e l’istituzione, Morcelliana, Saggi teologici IV, 1979, p. 194. 26. PAOLO MARTINELLI, “Il rapporto tra Carisma e Istituzione nella teologia di Hans Urs von Balthasar”, report given at the “Aristotle” University of Salonicco, September 7 1999 during the sixth Interchristian Symposium (4-9 September 1999), organised by the theological faculty of the University of Salonicco and the Franciscan Institute of Spirituality of the Antonianum (Rome). 27. CINZIO VIOLANTE, Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche, in Il Centro italiano di studi sull’ Alto Medioevo. Venticinque anni di attiv ità

(1952-1977), pp. 73-92. Quoted by MARIA PIA ALBERZONI in “Chiara d’Assisi. Il carisma controverso”, in GIANCARLO ANDENNA – MIRKO BREITENSTEIN – GERT MELVILLE (Hg.), Charisma und religiöse Gemeinschaften im Mittelalter, Akten des 3. Internationalen Kongresses des “Italienisch-deutschen Zentrums für Vergleichende Ordensgeschichte” (Dresden, 10-12 June

2004), LIT Verlag, Münster, 2005, pp.319-342. For further insights cf. also the research of GERT MELVILLE, Institutionem als geschichtswissenschaftliches Thema. Eine Einleitung, in Id., (ed.), Institutionem und Gaschichte. Theoretische Aspekte und mittelalterliche Befunde (Norm und Struktur 1), Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1992, pp. 1-24. 28. For Weber charism is an ideal type, that is a “way of behaviour” arrived at as a result of an abstract process; and it is used to describe a set of phenomena. The definition of “charism” is given in Economia e società (I-V, Turin, 1999, 1, p. 238; original title: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen 1972, p. 140): “Charism is to be understood as a quality regarded as extraordinary (…) which is attributed to a person. By it the person is held to be endowed with strengths and properties which are supernatural or superhuman, or at least exceptional in some particular way not accessible to others, or as sent by God or invested with

an exemplary worth, in a word as a ‘leader’ (Führer). It is obvious that, from a conceptual point of view, it is of no consequence how the quality in question is to be valued according to ‘objectively’ correct ethical, aesthetic, or any other type of criteria. The only th ing that counts is how it is actually valued by those who are charismatically led, by the ‘disciples’”.. Italian Trans. Cristina Andenna. 29. ALESSANDRO POLI, Comunità e carisma. Invito alla sociologia della religione weberiana. A cura dell’Associazione Centro Culturale “Leo XIII”, Available: http://www.leonexiii.org/poli_2006-5-6.pdf. 30. Studies of cultural anthropology arrive at the same conclusion: “the reality which we perceive is institutionally shaped, and its power translates into a capacity to engender social reality. The habits with which one protects him/herself against the unforeseeable

are the foundation of institutionalisation, and in the passage from the first to the second generation is produced the consol idation of institutions which coalesce as an objective reality, enduring and autonomous with respect to their historical origins. The person creates institutions, which in their turn recreate the person”. J. A. ESTRADA DIAZ, quoted by Paolo Gherri in “Canonistica, scienza sociale?” and published in: Il Diritto ecclesiastico. Giuffrè, CXI (2000), vol. 4. 31. Cf. KLAUS TANNER, Die Macht des Unverfügbar, in Charisma und religiose Gemeinschaften im Mittelalter (cf. note 27), pp. 25-44. 32. In this connection suffice it to reread the Testament of Francis. On this cf. also ACHIM WESJOHANN, Flüchtigkeit und Bewahrung des Charisma, oder: War der heilige Dominikus auch ein Charismatiker?, in Charisma und religiöse Gemeinschaften im Mittelalter (see note 27) pp. 227-260. Particularly valuable for our study are the following observations of the author: “Charismatics

are – perhaps – revolutionaries, creating a new thing, but they are not inevitably revolutionaries in the sense that they destroy something old. If ’revolutionary’ were to be interpreted in this sense, the characterisation of charismatic power as ’revolut ionary’ would lead into error. We should even reject out of hand the concept of charism from the analysis of the medieval vita religiosa, since it is clear that its great leaders were in absolutely no way ’revolutionaries’ in relation to the discipline of the Church. (...) This observation, i.e. that Dominic was a charismatic, could seem dubious if we were to take it as given at the beginning of the thesis that charism implies principally a revolutionary rupture. Such a thesis is found already in Weber, who affirms how the charism “generally speaking, in its most noble manifestations“ overrides rule and tradition (...) this radical stance, which suppresses all tradition, is not to be found in medieval piety. But if this explosive force is characteristic only of the “most noble manifestations of the charism“, then

this is certainly not the case in the medieval vita religiosa. In that case there is definitely no reason to deny it completely, on condition that the charism of Dominic is not considered “revolutionary“ in the above sense” (PP. 235-236. Our translation. 33. Apropos of the Pachomian legislation, for example, it can be affirmed that: “In the initial phase, more or less long, fervour and its charismatic growth do not need many rules, nor have any as yet been defined. Numerical increase, especially when the common life becomes strongly organised (as in the foundations of Pachomius), or the necessity of organising apostolic action (as in the beginning of the Order of Preachers) curtails the pre-institutional phase”. P. R. REGAMEY, entry “Carismi” in Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione (as in note 17), col. 306. 34. In fact, Luther saw obedience to a rule as in opposition to the freedom of charismatics. Cf. R.H. ESNAULT, Luther et le

monachisme aujourd’hui, Geneva, 1964, pp. 126-128, quoted by P.R. REGAMEY, entry “Carismi” in Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione (as in note 17), col. 306. 35. These short references come mainly from Weber, giving a broader view of the thought of other authors, e.g. EMILE DURKHEIM – There is also mention of charismatic community. 36. Cf. Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione (see note 17), entries “Carisma” (S. BURGALASSI) and “Carismi” (P. R. REGAMEY). 37. GERARDO PASTOR RAMOS, entry “Sociologia”, in Dizionario Teologico della Vita Consacrata, (see note 2), p. 1659. 38. R.Cl. X, 5; FF.2808 (as in note 13). 39. “If, however, any money be sent to her, let the abbess, with the advice of the discreets, make provision for her as regards those

things she may need”, R.Cl. VIII, 11; FF 2796 and “I firmly command all the brothers that they in no way receive coins or money, either directly or through an intermediary. But let the ministers and custodians, and these alone, take special care to provide for the needs of the sick and the clothing of the other brothers through spiritual friends, according to the diversity of places, seasons and cold climates, as necessity may seem to require, always safeguarding the principle stated above, not to receive coins or money”. R .B. IV; FF 87 (as in note 13). 40. The work of the historians is at present studying many religious families. This type of research will be one way of gaining a more complete picture of religious life in the Middle Ages. Cf. preparatory reflections for the Convention “Charisma e vita religiosa”, http://vita-religiosa.de/skizzital.htm (original text in :http://www.vita-religiosa.de/skizze.htm). 41. FRANCO DAL PINO, “Monachesimo e ordini mendicanti”, in Monaci ieri o oggi. Community and Ecumenical Study Centre

John XXIII, Sotto il Monte, Bergamo, 1981, pp. 126-127. 42. SALVATORE PRICOCO (Ed.). La Regola di San Benedetto e le Regole dei Padri, LorenzoValle Foundation – Arnaldo Mondatori Ed., 1995, introduction, p. xvi 43. Ibid. p. XVII.