Don Bosco Good Night Talk at BENIGNO CANAVESE – 1883
Commentary of Fr. Pietro Stella, during the World Congress of Salesian Brother
(Rome, 1975, Acts of the WCSB, p. 60-64 – English version; Italian original p.67-72)
Part I: The Salesian Brothers (19854-1974)
Development of his social – professional profile
Between 1872 and 1878 the dispute between Don Bosco and Archbishop Gastaldi about the diocesan clerics living in the Oratory or other Salesian houses was settled. Don Bosco did some straight talking to these clerics and virtually threw back on them the responsibility for any equivocal situation: to stay with Don Bosco, study at his expense and them return to their dioceses. It was at this stage that a separate novitiate, under the direction of Don Guilio Barberis, was erected in Valdocco. The differentiation of clerics from Brothers can be seen as a consequence of the need to reshape the clerical image. Things took decisive turn with the erection of the novitiate for Brothers at san Benigno Canavese in the autumn of 1883. A distinctive Brother’s style emerged from life at San Benigno Canavese and a camaraderie that was all theirs, different from that enjoyed by their confreres of the cloth.
On 19th October 1883 Don Bosco addressed what were perhaps his most important words to lay Salesians. His immediate audience was the twenty-two Brother novices at San Benigno, and possibly some other confreres of house; but from the way it is reported by Don Barberis, it would seem that Don Bosco had a wider audience in mind: the Brothers of the Congregation, who were causing him some concern. Forty years later, at the General Chapter of 1922, Don Barberis stated that Don Bosco ‘spoke in this way in order to raise the low morale of the Brothers’. Don Bosco took his inspiration from the Gospel of the day: “Today’s Gospel said: “Don’t be afraid, little flock!” You are also a little flock, but don’t be afraid, you will grow in number…’
From Don Barberis’s report, it can be concluded that the Brothers’ low spirits derived not from paucity of numbers, but from their situation in the houses. Don Bosco was probably worried by the malaise among the Brothers and consequent falling-off. Don Bosco was probably worried by the malaise – their number on the decline and he looking at the future wanted them to increase.
“I need helpers. There are things which priests and clerics cannot do and you can. I need to be able to send you out to a printing works and say: “Take this over and run it well”, or into a bookshop and say, “Manage this efficiently”. Another I need to send to a house and say, “Take over this work-shop and run it smoothly”. I need to have good men in the kitchen and on the door. I need people to whom I can give these jobs. This is what I want you to be… You have to act as masters over the other workers, not as servants. All must be done, however in proper form, nothing excessive. You are to be the managers, as though you owned the workshops. This is the idea of the Salesian Brotherr…’.
It was in 1992 that someone voiced the fear that Don Bosco made it sound like an anti-evangelical program. Jesus had said to His disciples: ‘You will be servants and not masters’. Don Bosco preached: ‘You will be masters and not servants’. It’s clear, however, that the real sense of the words as determined by Don Bosco’s attitude did not compromise the Gospel at all, as St.Paul’s exhortation to masters and slaves of his time did not compromise it. The dipping morale of the Brothers can be seen as reflection of the ‘working-class problem’ that was being discussed at that time. Rightly or wrongly, the Brothers who complained put themselves on the same footing as the workers outside; indeed, they were worse off, since they were working without salary. Don Bosco does not develop his theory, but he makes the statements from which it is not difficult to deduce the reasoning. The Brothers, as members of the Society, were the owners and managers of the workshops; they stood as owners to the non-Salesian employees. In religious status, the Brothers were equal to the priests and clerics, sharing the same ‘spiritual and temporal advantages’.
What did Don Bosco mean exactly by the statement: “There are things which priests and clerics cannot do and you will do them?” A less careful reading could lead to the conclusion, that he was suddenly gripped by the idea of social stratification, certain activities being seen as ‘unworthy’ of the priest and reserved to the other social or professional classes. That this could happened cannot be totally excluded, but it should not be given undue emphasis.
Social taboos and canonical prohibitions with regard to manual work were incorporated in the theology of the priesthood. The priest, as a mediator of the holiness of God, had to abstain or purify himself from everything profane. Synods and post-Tridentine ascetical books never wearied of inveighing against the priests who were paying scant regard to their dignity. Don Bosco was making straight-forward reference to forms of behaviour and activity which society or Canon Law did not consider admissible to the priest: the direction of presses, working in the kitchen or on the door. Don Bosco’s personal attitude in this matter is well known. He would have preferred not to go inside a noblemans’ carriage, to avoid giving the impression that he was a rich priest; he preffered to sit on the coach-box and hear the driver’s confession. When necessary he taught boys how to bind books or he did the washing-up for Mamma Margaret; he had ho qualms about recalling his humble origins and his youthful acrobatic prowess. As a religious educator he drove a coach and pair trough many of the social distinctions. The fact that, intrinsically, there was no reason why the Salesian priest should not do secular work was seen clearly wherever the requisite conditions were present, especially in the mission lands: in the Argentinian desierto, Fr. Evasio Garonne became a sought-after celebrity as the ‘cura dotor’ of Indians and poor settlers. The very breaking down of these taboos, the discerning might have foreseen, in the breaking down of these taboos, the probable development of a crisis in the social and professional relationship between the priests and laymen in the Congregation.
In saying what he did about laymen doing the things the priests could not, Don Bosco at once indicated the function of the layman and the social pressures brought to bear on the priests. He was also alluding to the forces of anticlericalism, which at times curbed the activity of the clergy in the working-class areas.
At this stage, it might be as well to try to identify those who openly expressed the discontent of the Brothers. It could have been the odd-job men in the smaller houses, and also in the large Communities of Valdocco and Sampierdarena and San Benigno. In the same houses there were Brothers with some training behind them and therefore more aware about their professional worth. It was perhaps to these that Don Bosco directed his words.
However, their institutional conditions and geographical distribution, which I shall refer to later, did not give the Brothers a chance to develop an ‘esprit de corps’ among themselves, and they were not affected by any idea of asserting their rights, which could have been suggested by the language of the social debate that was going on at the time.
Some results were achieved not so much in their relationship with the priests as in their contacts with the non-Salesian laymen: waiters, bakers, workers in the printing and other workshops. In the account-books of the time, about 1887 the term ‘coadiutori’ is still used for the paid clerks; but these are already being referred to as ‘famigli’, that is, domestics living in and sharing the family life (cf. the situation among the servants employed by noble or middle class families of the time). The ‘famigli’ too continued to be a modest nursery of religious vocations.
There years after the talk at San Benigno, in 1886, Don Bosco’s main ideas were taken up again by the 4th General Chapter of the Society. To quote:
‘The Church at all times has made use of its well-disposed members for the welfare of the people and the glory of God. In our time more than in any other, the Catholic institutions and among these our own Congregation, can receive great help from laymen, and in some cases, the laymen can do more good with greater freedom of action that the priests. This is especially true of the Brothers, who have a wide field open before them in which they can exercise their love for the neighbour and their zeal for the glory of God, by directing and supervising the enterprises of our Pious Society, by becoming master craftsmen in the workshops or Catechists in Sunday Oratories and especially on our foreign missions. Therefore, if they are to correspond properly with their vocation, they should:
1. at all times and under all circumstances show respect for the superiors and priests, considering them as fathers and brothers to whom they must be united in fraternal charity to form one heart and soul (Reg. Chap.11,2)
2. diligently carry out their tasks, bearing in mind that it is not the importance of the work that makes it acceptable to God, but the spirit of sacrifice and love with which it is performed.”
It is clear that some of the task given to the Brothers are expressed in ecclesial terms (Catechists, on our foreign mission), while others are referred to in social or professional terms. Introducing the concept the business-house, the role given to the Brother is one of direction and administration. It is understood that, as co-owner, the Brothers share the responsibilities and become employers, managers, officials. The logical development would have been the demarcation of the areas of responsibility and therefore of subordination (which could have included priests). However, form the use of professional terminology the statements of the GC slide back easily into ecclesiastical and ascetical language, in which the role of the laymen is expressed as a function of the ecclesiastical establishment.
The term ‘Church’ in these documents of 1886 does not refer to the community of the faithful but connotes the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which ‘at all times has made use of its well – disposed members’; and ‘Congregation’ means priests and superiors (who have to be priests), to whom the Brothers must show deference at all times and in all circumstances.
In his statement of 1883, Don Bosco was asking for help for himself and for his work. In the discussion of 1886 there is a considerable transformation. Don Bosco is represented not by the whole body of the Congregation, but by the priests ‘who can be helped very effectively by laymen’; or represented by the superiors, to whom the laymen must show respect ‘seeing them as fathers’. All underlings, however, whether priests or laymen, will be equal. The Brothers are to treat the priests as brothers ‘with whom they must live united by the link of fraternal charity so as to form one heart and one soul’.
In fact, there was much more harmonization than differentiation and confrontation between priests, clerics and Brothers. Meditation in common, no distinctions at table, co-responsibility in looking after the boys, the preparation of dramatics and minor festivities worked as of the people in the house for their hard work, cheerfulness and religious observance. Every house had its Brothers who reflected the models of the former generation. San Benigno and Torino had the master-tailor Pietro Cenci (1871-1939). Valdocco had among others, the architect Giulio Valloti (1881-1953). In Argentina, those that distinguished themselves: master-printer and journalist, Carlo Conci (1877-1947) and the architect Enrico Botta (1959-1949). Ecuador had Giacinto Pancheri (1859-1949), courageous builder of roads and bridges. France had the music scholar, Antoine Auda (1879-1964). There were still Brothers doing domestic chores or farming and were at times among the most spiritually advanced. Valdocco had Brother Giuseppe Balestra (1868-1942), Palestine the Servant of God Simone Srugi (1878-1943).
# The whole reflection has 54 pages (in “Salesianum”, 1975, p.411-445)
# Questions given to the Speaker:
1. It is possible to know, what Don Bosco had in mind regarding the fundamental characteristics of the figure of the Salesian Brother ?
2. Was Don Bosco opposed to a Congregation completely made up of persons in Holy Orders, or had he to put up with it even when it was somewhat played down and modified? Or how can we establish ourselves in this connection, using as a basis the documents we have in our possession?
# Replies given by the Speaker (two pages, 89-90) – some points
1. This is not an abstract speech, and thus offers food for thought.
2. I would like to know how other confreres (Brothers) view Don Bosco as their model. There are sources. In the archives exists some notes of Brothers at the time of Don Bosco and successive periods. It may not be much, but the documentation is very sound. I did not have the necessary time to do this work.
3. Was the thought of Don Bosco complete? According to me, there is some indications. In practice, Don Bosco surpassed the theory.
# Conclusions:
Since there is no study which concerns the figure of the Salesian Brother in other zones of the Salesian World, in all the provinces/regions let there be prepared a historical sketch of the Salesian Brother. Fundamental elements for the identity sketch: the evaluation, on the part of Don Bosco, of the laity as such; the integration of the figure of the Salesian Brother in the mind of Don Bosco as seen from history; historical gradual development of the figure of SB in the mind/ thought of Don Bosco.
3