“The Modern Religious Superior” – Pedro Arrupe, 1972

On April 10, 1972, Pedro Arrupe delivered the following remarks in Rome to a meeting of the
Vatican officials, superiors, priests, and professors (these periodic meetings were organized under
the Approdo Romano). To these leading figures in the Catholic Church, Arrupe speaks about
the religious superior in the modern context. He cites the reasons why orders are in need of “good
leaders” (and why “it is all the more difficult” to find those leaders today) and explains the task
facing superiors. Further, Arrupe outlines the eight characteristics of a superior’s service based on
instructions from the Second Vatican Council. He closes with thoughts on the proper formation of
superiors. “To fine men with talent, especially to find directors and superiors able to come to grips
with present conditions,” Arrupe notes, “is one of the most serious problems of the day” for
religious orders.

1. Good Leaders Needed

Not too long ago, the Jesuit Curia invited a management consultant for international
business enterprises to give us a conference. He described in detail the organizational
patterns of large business firms and drew on the blackboard an “organigram” which
seemed to be perfect. As he was about to conclude his brilliant exposition, he turned to
the blackboard again and drew a huge question mark. Then he asked us, “Where are the
men to put that magnificent plan into operation? The problem that the large commercial
enterprises face is not organizational structure, but men. Men with the talent and ability
to handle today’s new circumstances are in short supply.”

I think that, in the present historical moment, something along the same line ought to be
said by us Religious and, perhaps, by other ecclesiastical organizations. We are forced to
admit, in the words of the Gospel, that frequently hominem non habeo. To find men with
talent, especially to find directors and superiors able to come to grips with present
conditions is one of the most serious problems of the day.

It has always been difficult to find leaders and superiors. It is all the more difficult in our
present circumstances. Objectives are changing, new possibilities as well as new
problems are emerging, men are different, the concept of authority appears in a new light,
community and “superior-subject” relationships are being modified, ideas about
participation, co-responsibility, cooperation are undergoing precision. Everything is in
process of change. More accurately, change is taking place at a pace that is becoming
more accelerated day by day. Who is capable of assimilating such changes? Who knows
how to be a real superior in such circumstances?

This much is clear. Changes in situation and circumstance, plus the emphasis placed on
new values, ought to result in a new type of superior, a new form of governing. And the
result is observable. There is a profound inter-action taking place between the superior
and government. The person of the superior is creating a form of government; the
concrete expression of that government is forming the person of the superior.

In synthesis, one could say that, up till now, government took place within a static
cultural context; today it must take place within a cultural context of rapid change. For
that reason we need men “who have the capacity for translating ideas and discoveries
into action: who are receptive to change and initiators of change: who have a high
tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty: who have the will to risk … if they and their
institutions are to survive.”

We must, therefore, educate and develop superiors capable of directing our institutions
and communities, even though “in the end, of course, education is an individual rather
than an institution-center process … important as the institutions must be.” In the
Constitutions of the Society, St. Ignatius says that “subjects will be, in their turn, what the
Superior is.”

Since a name often expresses the essence of a thing, efforts have been made to find a name
for this new figure who carries authority. An attempt was made to avoid the use of the
word “superior” since, for modern thinking, the term suggests discrimination,
paternalism or triumphalism, none of them easily acceptable. One General Chapter tried
to change the name to something more modern. However, after analyzing the essentials
of the function of a superior, the Chapter could not find any other name that would
adequately express all its diverse elements. The words father, brother, leader,
coordinator, administrator, spiritual leader, etc. all denote a particular function but do
not adequately express all that a superior is. The Chapter concluded it was preferable to
keep the name “superior” because it gave a better idea of what the reality of a superior
is.

This tendency can be seen in many situations. Even ecclesiastical documents use the
words “moderator,” “the one responsible,” “coordinator,” etc. instead of the word
“superior.” Likewise, instead of the word “subjects,” they will use the words
“associates,” “brothers,” “collaborators” in an attempt to minimize distinctions.

2. The Task of a Superior in the Present Historical Moment

It may be opportune here to trace out a descriptive explanation of what the word
“superior” means.

If the task of a superior is characterized, today in a special way, by aspects that are both
traditional and new, its essentials, nevertheless, remain the same. The modern superior,
while remaining faithful to what is essential and unchangeable in his office of bearer of
the authority of Christ, will know how to accommodate himself to modern circumstances.
It is not a question of minimizing authority, nor of creating something entirely new. It is
rather a question of keeping the essentials and knowing how to modify tile accidentals.
It is, to use a figure of speech, a matter of building a bridge between tradition and the
future or, if you prefer, of adding a link to the chain of history. The superior, preserving
and exercising the function that is proper to his office, creates a new image of that office,
gains a new efficiency for it that puts the figure of the superior in a new light. And this
he does not by renouncing any part of his authority, but by exercising that authority in a
different manner.

It is not easy to find men who have a clear hold upon basic principles and who know how
to make a modern application of those principles with flexibility and adaptability; men
not only capable of withstanding “future shock” (Alvin Tofiler) but strong enough to
keep the timeless and to discard the obsolete; men with such powers of discernment they
can judge the signs of the present times and adjust to them in a well-considered
awareness of their true function. A superior, in times such as our own, ought to be both
the teacher of a still valid past and an agent of change of a present that looks to the future.

3. The Exercise of Authority as Service

The new figure of a superior emerges from new perceptions and new evaluations of his
characteristic functions. Today, the exercise of authority is seen not as a power or
privilege but as “a service.” This is a fundamental truth rooted in the “I have not come to
be ministered to, but to minister.” But this has to be correctly understood. The service of
authority is specific and inalienable. It does riot consist precisely in a superior becoming
the “slave of the community,” nor in taking upon himself the most menial duties for the
benefit of the others. On occasion, these things can be edifying and can well express the
spirit of humility of one who wants to be rid of every trace of “authoritarian posturing.”
However, they can also suggest a kind of escapism, creating the illusion that, in this way,
one fulfills that other service which is properly and exclusively the superior’s—a service
that is much more difficult and, at times, quite agonizing.

The authentic service of a superior is to seek and discern the will of God, interpreting and
manifesting it to his subjects, individually and as community, by means of command.
Such a command, in many instances, includes not only a manifestation of God’s will but
also an “apostolic mission.” The specific and inalienable function of the superior is to
interpret the will of God for his subjects, who accept it in obedience.

The service of that authority which comes from Christ and is exercised for and with Christ
is far removed from that “autocratic arbitrariness” which is a yielding to personal
impulse. (The superior has to be a responsible interpreter; he must be faithful to what
God is asking at any given moment in any given circumstance.) The authority which
comes from Christ has nothing in common with that timid laissez faire which, with false
humility, inhibits the exercise of authority. Failure of a superior, possibly motivated by
an apparent good, to exercise that authority which is exclusively his would be to commit
a very grave sin against his responsibility precisely as superior.

It is not surprising that the superior finds himself, at times, tormented by an internal
dialectic and tension. On the one hand, he has the humbling awareness that many of his
subjects surpass him in virtue and human qualities. On the other hand, he knows the
power of that authority he has received from God, an authority which guarantees him,
insofar as he is a superior, a special help from God. That authority confers on him such
security and strength that he feels capable of exercising it even against the stronger and
organized opposition of persons and groups of considerable stature.

The world today is particularly sensitive to that aspect of the superior’s service which
touches upon his responsibility to the person of his subjects. A superior must care for his
subjects as men and as religious. Apart from being very important, this responsibility is,
today, a very sensitive issue. Today’s subject, however disrespectfully he may speak
about superiors, wants, at the moment of truth, to feel that he is being directed and
protected by his superiors. He does not tolerate being overlooked as a person or other
interests taking precedence over his person “as such.” There is no tolerance today for the
superior-administrator figure who, for the sake of bringing efficiency to the work, bears
down hard upon his subjects as persons. Neither is there any tolerance for the superior
who, attracted by other interests, neglects his community and its members and abandons
them to themselves.

There is yet another aspect of this service of the superior. The superior must become
the creator of union and the interpreter of the will of God within the community entrusted to him.
The superior must be the symbol and pledge of the unity of the community—of the
members among themselves and of the community with the superior. He must inspire
and coordinate community life in such a way that the community can achieve its mission,
both with respect to its members and its apostolic work. For the superior, the community
is not only the object of his responsibility. It is also his partner in dialogue, an element in
the process of inspiration. The Spirit communicates himself through the community, too,
and reveals himself in the desires and suggestions of its members. A superior cannot
ignore his community. The search for God’s designs for the community often leads to
their discovery within the community itself. What is community dialogue? Often it is the
expression of the movement of the Spirit between the superior and his subjects, between
the superior seeking counsel and the community revealing to him the inspirations of the
Spirit. Afterwards, it will be the superior’s task, through spiritual discernment in close
contact with God, to transform that inspiration into command in order to lead the
community along God’s paths.

In the present moment, a very important task of the superior is to unify his community. A
superior will have to keep himself above all currents and factions which can arise in a
community. He it is who must try to effect mutual understanding, to defend the
community against pressures and unacceptable procedures, to protect the minority, to
voice the desires and concerns of the “timid who have no voice.” The superior cannot be
an acceptor personarum.

Granted these clarifications of a superior’s function, in general, and of a post-conciliar

superior, in particular; granted that the principal aspect of this function is to know the
will of God and to manifest it to his subjects, it is obvious that a superior will have to be,
above all, a man of prayer, a man united with God. This contact with God, if it is real and
efficacious, will keep him always in perfect indifference of spirit (understood in the
Ignatian sense) and always disposed to follow the divine will. The more important
decisions of the superior will always have to be taken in this intimate contact with God.
And this will always constitute the basic premise of all his work and activity.

4. Characteristics of the Superior’s Service Today

The directives of Vatican Council II help us to flesh out some characteristics of the service
a modern superior ought to offer his subjects.

1) Protects the Charism of the Founder. A superior who is also a religious (a religious
superior, therefore) is the one responsible for development of his religious Institute, but
a development achieved without the least deviation from the Founder’s inspiration. Such
deviations are always suicidal. And suicide can result as easily from a fatal leap into the
void as from a slow, drawn-out death in a dungeon. A primary task of today’s religious
superior is adaptation and renewal. In this matter, study and profound reflection on the
Founder’s charism will help considerably. Study and reflection is needed in order to
identify the historically conditioned, which can paralyze maximum adaptation. It is
needed, also, to avoid the danger of eliminating elements so essential that their removal
results in a substantial change in the founding charism. And it is the original charism that
has received the approval of the Hierarchical Church.

2) Promotes Union. The superior is the agent of union in the community over which he
presides. This is true whether we are talking about the universal community of an entire
Institute (the situation of a superior-general), or whether we are talking about a local
community. The local superior will have to be, in addition, the link of union between the
local community and the universal community or body of the Institute. This linkage
brings about an integration of the members (local communities) with the body (universal
community). In this way, each member is vivified by the life blood of the body, and the
entire body is vivified by the vitalizing contribution of the members. An extremely
delicate and fundamental mission of the superior is this: to preserve union, to maintain
unity in plurality. For the forces at work are seemingly in opposition. There is the local
adaptation, which connotes a pluralizing and centrifugal tendency; there is, too, the
overall unification of the Institute, which presumes an impulse towards centripetal
action.

3) Respect for Persons. The superior will have to take into account and show respect for the
human person of his subjects. He will have to promote the development of their
personalities at the same time as he encourages their voluntary submission. This respect
for the person has to be well understood. While it is true that personal rights are sacred,
it is equally true that, in accepting religious life, one renounces many of these rights and
that the holocaust offered to God, following the example of Christ often brings about a
perfection of the human person. Respect for the person consists in the effort to know and
take into account the ideas and feelings of the other, to discover and develop the other’s
personal qualities.
4) Charity and Trust. To reveal to subjects the charity with which God loves them8 to show
interest and, above all, trust in them, are characteristics which ought always to be
developed, but more so today than ever before. Trust is the touch-stone for determining
whether the spirit of the superior-subject relationship is authentic. If trust is not there, the
relationship is based on fear, coldness, tension, or mutual suspicion, which stifle any kind
of inter-personal relation and all apostolic dynamism. On the contrary, mutual trust is
the source of well-being, of intimacy and of apostolic initiative. A subject who is aware
his superior trusts him, a superior who knows his subject has trust in him—this is the
premise which guarantees that harmony so necessary for superior-subject relationships.

5) Interprets the Signs of the Times. Signs of the times are manifestations of the action of the
Spirit in the world. When they do not proceed from the good spirit, they can become real
“counter-signs.” For this reason, the discernment of spirits is, today, of special value. The
phrase “the reading of the signs of the times” can be translated, at least in great part, by
the phrase “the discernment of spirits.” What is important is not so much the external
manifestation of signs, but rather the spirit which is the source of their origin. It is of
capital importance to know how to discover and discern, in a way that leads to wise
direction, the new situations and currents that prevail: secularization, change,
development, liberation, criticism, “contestation,” de-institutionalization, de-
mythicization, etc. And there are as many other phenomena offering an ambiguous sign.
They all have to be examined and, in a manner of speaking, looked at with the eyes of
Christ. This is one of the great tasks of the modern superior.

6) Assimilates Positive Elements. Once true discernment has been achieved, the superior
has to be able to assimilate the new and positive elements. There is no doubt that the
signs of the times always have some positive aspects. These can be incorporated into our
daily life and into the life of our institutions. Dialogue, co-responsibility, subsidiarity,
shared responsibility, inter-personal communication, self-study, etc. such things offer our
communities and their members new forms and new sources of vitality. The modern
superior ought to try to use them and integrate them into this government.

There is a need to know how to take advantage of elements of the modern world:
universalism, communication, mobility, techniques of communication media, transport,
etc. These offer new possibilities for planning and the use of human resources. They open
up opportunities for collaboration and exchange to a degree unthinkable only a few years
ago.
Another chapter could be devoted to the adaptation of the administrative methods of
great industrial institutions, to the extent they can be used for the good government of
religious institutions. Obviously, the management practices of business enterprises have
many elements that are in conflict with those proper to a religious order. However, it is
also true there are other elements which are quite recommendable. A calm and objective
study of business organization and administration can suggest ideas and practices that
would give greater efficiency to the dynamics of our institutions and apostolic works. It
would be a matter of applying in a modern way, let us say a business way, the
supernatural principles familiar to us. It was in this line of thought that the well-known
English promoter of “Management by Objectives,” Mr. John W. Humble, said to us,
“Reading the Constitutions of the Society, I was astonished to find that St. Ignatius, back
in 16th century, set out the basic principles of our modern business management
methods. We can all learn from one another.”

7) Inspires. The inspiration a superior should provide is very important in times like the
present, so much given to frustration, discouragement, pessimism and destructive
criticism. But the ability to inspire presupposes that a superior has great confidence in
God and in his community, to whose members he always attributes good will. Ability to
inspire requires considerable objective realism in making value judgments; it requires
great supernatural strength and large-heartedness founded exclusively in God and
Divine Providence. A superior knows that, having done everything possible to interpret
and follow God’s will, he has divine omnipotence on his side. He knows that, keeping
faith with this conviction, even his own errors will be providential means for achieving
God’s purposes. It is confidence in God which enables the superior to inspire and confers
on him the gift of magnanimity, ready to accept his subjects with all their involuntary
limitations: It is confidence in God which permits him, despite the problems of day-to-
day government, to plan for the apostolate, even to plan so largely as to make one think,
at times, it is beyond human possibilities of realization.

One’s intuition of the future differs radically according to the degree one possesses this
openness of spirit. Utopianism, audacity, wide vision, realism, prudence, fear, indecision,
shortsightedness, immobilism—these and many other attitudes describe the possible
stance of a superior. They range from the quixotism of the pathologically imagined
“Island of Barataria” to the irremediable and incorrigible “killer” with his automatic “no”
in the face of every initiative. The superior who inspires knows how to be realistic even
as his vision deepens and widens; he knows how to keep openness to, and confidence in
God and in his subjects; he knows, finally, how to communicate these qualities to his
subjects that they may become his better collaborators.

This is the basis of all those qualities which books specializing in this matter require today
in an authentic “leader.”

8) A Man of Self-Renewal. The figure of the post-conciliar superior is that of a man aware
of the constant change in his milieu, and who accepts this reality. Today’s superior must
be alert and open to continual renovation. Obviously, this supposes he is man who tries
to renew himself continually. A man, therefore, desirous of self-renewal:
a) overcomes routine. He does not feel he is a prisoner of routine habits, but rather nurtures
a desire to offer greater service and understands the desire for renewal he observes in
others. This disposition increases his capacity to accept changes that are necessary and
opinions which differ from his own.
b) accepts the risk of making a mistake. Learning requires risk taking. The man in search of
progress wants to experiment and to take some prudent risks. He is not afraid of the
judgments made of his actions nor of the criticisms they might incur. He has enough
humility to recognize his mistakes, as well as the strength to resist discouragement and
to begin all over again. One reason adults learn less than the young is because, usually,
they take fewer risks and with greater difficulty admit their mistakes. If we want to learn,
we have to take risks and make mistakes. The day we start looking for security in
everything we shall have shut the door on our capacity for adaptation and development.
A superior who thinks, or seems to think, he has all the right answers for the problems of
our very complicated world today is not going to be able to inspire much confidence.
c) makes a continuing study of apostolic objectives. Renewal that is based on solid foundations
has another element: continuing analysis of our apostolic objectives. “What should our
priorities be, today? Do we have to modify them?” Creativity is much needed in our day.
Not only activities, but life and our manner of witnessing to it, the scale of values, etc.
have to be modified in the course of time. It is continuing reflection that renews the
superior, teaches him that, in these days of such rapid change, the most stable reality is
the reality of movement.
d) adapts the structures of government. The observations made about renovation and
change apply with equal insistence to the structures of government. It is not only that
objectives change, but there is a difference today in the very manner of governing. There
is a difference, too, in the elements that are integrated into government: communication,
participation, subsidiarity, etc. These are things which have a decisive influence on the
manner of structuring government. It is for this reason that so much importance is
attached to the renovation of structures in such way that they become more efficient,
more quickly responsive, more flexible. The spirit creates structures and structures, in
their turn, sustain the spirit and make it operative.
e) feels the need for “recyclage.” Today, it is possible to prolong physical life and youth. But,
ideologically and culturally, we grow old at a much faster rate than in the past. That is
why we need to engage in continuing “recyclage,” to look for new complementary
sources of energy—new ideas, new methods, new forms of collaboration. We need to be
ever open to good counsel and new initiatives. Clearly, the superior must be aware of this
restlessness for progress, must keep himself up-to-date, if he really believes in his own
function and has personal enthusiasm for the project he is directing.
f) favors a healthy pluralism. In order to avoid a too personalized centralism, centrality has
to be harmonized with a de-personalizing and proper subsidiarity. In a process of
renovation, in the sense we have been speaking of it, one notes clear differences between
the characteristics of a monolithic organization (in which centrality prevails) and a
pluralistic one (in which subsidiarity is at work). In a monolithic organization, every
situation has an official point of view, initiatives must always come from the center, the
central power controls everything and, in consequence, decisions themselves become
centralized. In a pluralistic organization, various points of view are tolerated, power is
distributed, initiatives come from various sources and levels and decisions, likewise, are
assigned to various levels.
The superior who appreciates living reality knows well that pluralism is not
disintegration, nor dismemberment, nor chaos, despite its dangers. He also knows that,
even though centrality has its advantages (unity, rapidity, etc.), yet, if all innovations are
supposed to emanate from a single decision-center, there will soon be stalemate. For the
end result of gathering all questions together in the center is the stifling of the unique and
principal source of dynamism. Indeed, this potential source of dynamism may have
already been burned out because every initiative arising from the periphery had
previously met with frustration and antagonism. The so- called “healthy pluralism” is a
prudent combination of centralization and the freedom which is necessary on the
periphery.
g) allows criticism. The modern superior, the one given to self-renewal, knows he will be
criticized. This he accepts, not taking it as personal offence, but rather as advice and
matter for reflection. He knows that, in society divided as it is at present, it is impossible
to please everyone. He can only try to be objective and just in his decisions, without
undue concern for what others will say. He will make every effort to prescind from
popularity ratings, certain that, in the long run, truth, justice and sincerity will prevail.
He is not a political man in the sense of being always anxious to take those decisions
calculated to be the most popular.
h) promotes communication. A superior who favors self-renewal knows the value of
communication: “Communication is more than the expression of ideas and the indication
of emotion. At its most profound level, it is the giving of self in love. Christ’s
communication was, in fact, spirit and life.”
In every large organization, the problem of communication is not merely a problem of
information—to hear something new or to satisfy curiosity. Basic to the problem is
another element: over and above the “message” or the “news” there is the encounter with
the person communicating, with his intimate intellectual and emotional life, with his
attitudes, his cultural differences, etc.
The task of the superior will be to open up these channels among his subjects in order to
facilitate an exchange of communication; to remove or eliminate the psychological and
spiritual blocks; to bring it about that, among the members of his community and
between himself and the community, the same wave length for transmission and
reception is being used.
Good person-to-person communication and communication among members of a
community produces mutual understanding, recognition and respect leading to the
discovery of unsuspected action of the Spirit in the hearts of our brothers. The superior’s
communication with his subjects is of great importance. However, it is not enough that
the message of the superior be transmitted. It is equally important that it be received and
understood. The challenge today is to make sure the receiver (community, subjects)
responds and provides “feedback.” To be avoided at all costs is a transmission sent out
on a wave length unable to be picked up by the intended receiver.
With mutual, personal and intimate communication, which can lead to the very intimate
contact of conscience (manifestation of conscience), there comes into being that spiritual
intimacy so essential for good governing.
An aspect of special note is the communication, in good time, of decisions and the reason
for the decisions. Subjects, today, want to know the how and why of decisions which
intimately affect their lives. They are able to recognize and accept the many instances in
which the superior is bound to professional secrecy or to secrecy of conscience. But it
must also be observed that the norm of secrecy and reserve in good government can be
quite different today from what it was some years ago. It is not always easy to find a just
and proper balance in this matter. A subject’s loss of confidence can arise as easily from
an excessive reserve as from an imprudent revelation of conscience material.
i) looks for suitable successors. The superior, interested in renewal and devoted to his
Institute, tries to form subjects who can succeed him: spiritual men who are alert, creative,
prudently daring, men who have “learned how to learn.” Such men will be the best
guarantee of a vitality that is perpetually self-renewing.
Convinced of the importance of forming superiors, the Society of Jesus, for example,
organized what were called Colloquia Superiorum—meetings of several weeks duration
directed to the formation and up-dating of its own superiors. Our conviction was that
this task calls for experimentation, for diversity, indeed for dynamic pluralism.

5. Practical Steps in Forming Superiors

The Colloquium Superiorum is one of the several serious attempts of the Society of Jesus to
meet, while retaining its fundamental charism, the challenge of the post-Vatican II world.

The proposed general aim of the Colloquium is the development of administration in the
Society.

The modern superior of a religious province or house has much to learn, as experience
proves, not only from an intense reflection within a group of peers on the role of
spirituality in a secularistic world, but also from the “behavioral sciences” which this
secularistic world has to offer, namely the new sciences of organizational behavior and
social and managerial psychology. Often enough these sciences put at the disposal of
superiors results of scientific research which can contribute to the more efficient practice
of charity, prudence, and patience; can suggest ways to motivate cooperation and
achievement in the apostolate, the working out and resolution of conflicts, etc.

Having seen the results of the method of the Colloquium, a further development of the
method was designed which has appropriately been called Colloquium Two. The goal of
the project is to develop and strengthen the potential of men who are already playing or
will soon be playing creative and influential roles in the maintenance and adaptation of
the Society. They will be selected from different countries and cultures.

The opportunity to experience unity amid diversity, to come to understanding of other

mentalities, to recognize the limitations of one’s own culture and the advantages of
others—such opportunities will undoubtedly bring about an interior liberation from
previously acquired mental sets. Equally important is the opportunity to develop a
community spirit through individual and collective reflection, to achieve interpersonal
communication with individuals of differing background, to experiment creatively with
the new media of communication. These experiences will, hopefully, foster that
sympathetic understanding and flexibility so much required by and essential to the
apostolic needs of our times.
Original Source:
Challenge to Religious Life Today: Selected Letters and Addresses—I, ed. Jerome Aixala. St.
Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1979, “The Modern Religious Superior,” pg. 79–94.