Thomas Bailey, OSB33-621 United States Since 1945April 21, 2011Dr. Janice Brandon-Falcone

Vocatio Veritati: The Meaning of the Covenant of Peace, 1969

The 1960s were a time of great upheaval and change throughout the western,

industrialized world. Some of the changes were minor (i.e. fashion and music), but other changes

had significant impacts beyond the contemporary age (i.e. the Civil Rights Movement and

structural changes to government). Like many other institutions of the day, the Roman Catholic

Church sought to find its bearings in a new world; and Pope John XXIII’s (1958-1963) call for an

ecumenical council in 1959 affected the American Catholic Church with its mandate of

ressourcement (a return to earlier sources) and aggiornamento (bringing up-to-date).

Ressourcement and Aggiornamento applied to all areas of Church life, from relations with non-

Christians to liturgical worship. In particular, the decree Perfectae Caritatis (October 28, 1965)

called for a renewal and adaptation of religious life within the Church. In the call to return to the

sources, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) called on religious orders to rediscover the

charisms of their founders.

The Church in the United States was different than the old-world. It was a relatively new

institution, substantially growing and adapting during the flux of immigrants beginning in the

mid-nineteenth century. It was not until 1908 that the United States Church was no longer

considered mission territory by Propaganda Fide (the missionary department of the Roman

Curia). Catholicism there was an immigrant Church and the focus until the 1950s had been on

establishment, education, and missionary work. The ethos of the American Church, undoubtedly

affected the development of the older religious orders that came to minister there. In some

Bailey 2

respects, these American branches can be viewed as new religious orders, as formerly

contemplative communities began apostolic outreach.

The Benedictines were no exception to adapting to the American spirit. An obvious

example was the Benedictine Sisters sent from St. Walburga Abbey (Eichstatt, Germany) in 1852

to work with German immigrant children in Pennsylvania. They moved from a strictly enclosed,

contemplative life in Germany to an active, educational apostolate in the United States. The

monasteries and priories that were to form the Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation in 1881

had similar experiences. Either through the direct influence of their religious superiors or through

pressure from the diocesan bishop, these early Benedictines ran schools (sometimes separated

from the monastery) and provided pastoral leadership to surrounding ethnic parishes. Though the

development of a monastic identity was important to the founders of these communities,

adaptations were allowed to suit the needs of the missions.

The renewal period following the Second Vatican Council created a dilemma for

Benedictines in the Swiss-American Congregation, they needed to remain true to the charism of

the Rule of St. Benedict as well as the missionary movement that gave rise to their foundations in

the second-half of the nineteenth century. The congregation, known during the late-1960s and

1970s as the Benedictine Federation of the Americas, was not able to definitively answer this

question for itself after the Second Vatican Council. Instead they produced in 1969 a document,

Covenant of Peace, which was meant to spark a discussion moving toward a more definitive

monastic theology.

The Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation had published in 1924 the Declarations

on the Holy Rule and Constitutions of the Swiss-American Congregation of the Order of Saint

Benedict (minor revisions were made in this document until 1962), which provided the juridical

Bailey 3

and theological basis for their way of life for forty-five years.1 In 1969 the experimental

constitution, The Covenant of Peace was promulgated. Though both documents contain much

that is juridical, an underlying monastic theology is also discernible. These documents contain a

perceptible tension between the Rule and their history. For the Swiss-American Benedictines the

call of the Second Vatican Council was meant to resolve this tension. As will be shown however,

the issue was delayed and left for future monks.

The 1924 Declarations and Constitutions contain two separate parts. The first follows the

outline of the Rule of St. Benedict and describes the common practices within the various

monasteries of the congregation. As an example, the sixth chapter in the Rule is devoted to

silence, and the 1924 Declarations and Constitutions note as part of the congregational practice,

“Twice a week a suitable walk beyond the precincts may be permitted, always in the company of

some superior or senior of the community, as much as possible avoiding association with

seculars. Before and after the walk the customary prayers are to be said.”2 The second section

contains the laws and regulations of the congregation’s structure and operating procedures. The

constitutional section contains material covering the scope and limits of the congregation, the

powers and responsibilities of the Abbot-Praeses and the General Chapter, the procedures for

establishing a new monastery, and the suffrages to be offered for the deceased members of the

congregation.

At the beginning of the 1924 Declarations and Constitutions, it outlines the paradigm by

which the document should be read. The monks of the Swiss-American Benedictine

Congregation saw themselves in a direct-line with St. Benedict, and as such, availed themselves

1 Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation, Declarations on the Holy Rule and Constitutions of the Swiss-American Congregation of the Order of Saint Benedict, (St. Benedict, OR: Mount Angel Abbey, 1955), “Promulgation” and “Decree;” hereafter 1924 Declarations and Constitutions.2 1924 Declarations and Constitutions, Declaration 17.

Bailey 4

of the opportunities in the Rule to “adapt our outward mode of life to the necessities and

infirmities of our day.”3 It continues by explicitly noting the deviation from the Rule through the

operation of various types of schools and the external apostolate of pastoral work in parishes. The

Rule itself decrees that monastic activity should remain in the monastic enclosure (RB 66:6-7), so

it is understandable why the declaration was explicitly needed. An educational apostolate is not

foreign to the monastic spirit because the Rule places a high value on education (RB 48: 4,13,15,

22-23) and there existed an early association of monks with education. Even within an

established monastic apostolate, however, care needed to be taken.4 The primary issue was the

outside work of the monasteries’ priests.

Recognition of the incongruity between the Benedictine ideal and the lived practice is

observed in the long exhortation on the importance of prayer (Declarations 18-42). The

declarations note that “the divine office is the chief duty of monastic life,” and as such, utmost

care must always be observed in offering it worthily to God.5 And yet those “lawfully excused”

were not required to attend the Divine Office or the Conventual Mass. A similar provision was

given in the case of lay brothers, whose liturgical requirements were already less than the choir

monks.6 A definition is not given in the declarations for what constitutes an approved absence;

nevertheless it more than likely means either illness or an assignment done under obedience to the

abbot. The assignments given to monks depended upon their canonical status (lay or cleric).

Prior to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, the typical work of the lay brothers were as

craftsmen (carpenters, plumbers, bakers, farmers, etc.) and the work of the clerics were to “studies

and to spiritual works” (teaching, administrative, or sacramental) though it was not beneath the

3 1924 Declarations and Constitutions, Declaration 2.4 1924 Declarations and Constitutions, Declaration 55.5 1924 Declarations and Constitutions, Declaration 19-20.6 1924 Declarations and Constitutions, Declaration 33; 87.

Bailey 5

dignity of a cleric to perform manual labor “if perchance it is enjoined upon them, either on

account of their ability or the needs of the monastery.”7 The work of a laborer did not normally

interfere with attendance at prayer, though the annual harvest did have preeminence over the

prayer time of the lay brothers.8 The dissonance of the ideal and the lived experience evidenced

in the 1924 Declarations and Constitutions did not disappear with promulgation of the 1969

Covenant of Peace.

Ora et labora (prayer and work) is one of the ancient mottos of Benedictine monks. It

correlates to the tradition begun in the sixth century in which monks founded monasteries in

remote locales and, in addition to providing prayer to God, transformed barren landscapes into

garden oasis and thriving medieval towns. There is more to the motto than a practical connection;

in the Rule there is an interdependence and connectivity to the prayer the monks pray and the

work they perform on behalf of God. The Latin phrase used for the monastic prayer regimen in

the Rule underscores the connection – Opus Dei. The term literally means “the work of God.”

The manual or intellectual labors of the monk are also called to be the monks’ prayer. In the Rule

monks are admonished “whenever you begin a new work, pray to God that He may bring it to

completion.” (RB Prologue:4)

The interpretation and lived experience of both prayer and work is indicative of monastic

theology. In a corporate setting, such as a religious congregation, there are difficulties in delving

into their collective understanding. In the creation of the 1969 Covenant of Peace, and its

subsequent 1975 revision, it was the product of a committee of monks from different monasteries

in the Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation. The language of the committee’s delegates at

the 1969 Special General Chapter appears to indicate a carefully worded document that was the

7 1924 Declarations and Constitutions, Declaration 79; 86.8 Richard Endress, The Enduring Vision: Stability and Change in an American Benedictine Monastery, (Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1974) 286.

Bailey 6

result of compromise among strong opinions. It was also important in creating a congregation-

wide document that it be more vague, so as to be open to interpretation. Unlike in other religious

congregations, Benedictines maintain autonomy from the other monastic houses. The document

could not be positive therefore. In response to concerns about the vagaries in certain areas of the

Covenant of Peace’s “A Declaration on Benedictine Monastic Life,” it was noted at the General

Chapter the necessity of maintaining the document as presented to provide multiple avenues for

reflections to be incorporated in future revisions.9 A final concern in studying a corporate

document is the stress on an ideal rather than the lived reality. The history of the Covenant of

Peace’s praxis is a topic for another paper; the purpose here is to understand the theological

understanding of monasticism in light of the decree Perfectae Cariatis.

The 1969 Covenant of Peace was not created in a vacuum but was the result of several

years of study that took place outside and within the congregation. During the Second Vatican

Council, monks and nuns, in anticipation of Perfectae Caritatis, began applying aggiornamento

and ressourcement in a theoretical way through research and musings on the future of monastic

life. The American Benedictine Review was the primary tool in the United States for the

dissemination of ideas. The editorships of Colman Barry, OSB and Teresa Ann Doyle, OSB

allowed for differing viewpoints to have open and frank discussions.10 On an international-level

the abbots of the Benedictine Confederation met in session at Sant’ Anselmo Abbey (Rome, Italy)

and produced A Statement on Benedictine Life in 1967. In addition, the American-Cassinese

Benedictine Congregation (the Swiss-American and American-Cassinese congregations are the

two largest congregations of Benedictine men in the United States) published in June 1969 their

9 Benedictine Federation of the Americas, Official Minutes of the Special General Chapter Held at St. Joseph Abbey, St. Benedict, LA, October 12-28, 1969, Marmion Abbey Archives, 61-62.10 Joel Rippinger, OSB, The Benedictine Order in the United States: An Interpretive History, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 251.

Bailey 7

declaratory statement on Benedictine monasticism, Renew and Create. All the research was

available to the draft committee for the 1969 Covenant of Peace, as well as the abbots and

delegates to the Special General Chapter. The result was a document on the cutting-edge of

monastic theology. As such, the writers and members of the General Chapter viewed the

declarations as a work in progress (ad experimentum). The General Chapter, therefore, sponsored

– though did not implement until 1973 – a Monastic Institute to be a think-tank for future

revisions. The institute met three times (1973, 1974, and 1975) before the final ratification of a

new version of the declarations was approved in August 1975. Nevertheless there were few

substantive changes made to the document in 1975 and therefore can be viewed as the statement

by the Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation on monastic life.11

The 1969 Covenant of Peace contains seventy-nine declarations concerning Benedictine

monastic life; in this study seven of them (D8, D14, D15-16, D42, and D47-48) will be examined.

These statements were chosen because they reflected clear and concise statements on an

understanding of prayer and work within community. A complete textual and historical analysis

has yet to be done on the document. However, a preliminary discursus has been completed on the

1991 Declaration on Monastic Life, which is a language-updated version of 1975. The overview

notes the ecclesial dimensions of monasticism and the monastic vocation as a response to God’s

call. Of particular interest to this study are Fr. Samuel Russell’s observations on the similarities

between the Swiss-American and American-Cassinese Congregation. He sees within the

documents an emphasis on “monastic life most fundamentally as service, which is directed to

both the community and the wider Church” and “orient the monastic community beyond itself.”12

11 Thomas Bailey, OSB, Conversation Morum? The Development of A Declaration on Benedictine Monastic Life, 1975, (Hist 33:601 – Research Methods and Historiography, Northwest Missouri State University, 2009), 2.12 Samuel Russell, OSB, The Monastic Ideal: An Analysis of the Revised Constitutions of the Congregations of the Benedictine Confederation, (S.T.L. thesis, Pontificium Anthenaeum Anselmianum, 1993), 71-73, 95.

Bailey 8

Reading through the relevant declarations in the 1969 Covenant of Peace, a tension

between contemplative versus active apostolates and communal versus individual is present.

Overall the emphasis is placed on a common life, but one that allows for exceptions and yet is

suspicious of exceptions. Declaration 8 provides a good example of the tension.

The very way of life of the monastic institute is its apostolic mission, implicit in all the life and work of the community and its members. It is primarily a witness to the values of faith and prayer in human life. Many other apostolates … can also be undertaken by monks and communities of monks, provided that the basic monastic life is kept intact. The specific apostolate by which the influence of the monk pulsates and radiates outside the monastery should complement the basic way of life. … Benedictine monks must be critical of their commitments and evaluate them in the light of a renewal based on a return to the sources of their life. They must be especially careful of community commitments undertaken without a time limit, as these sometimes perpetuate a harmful situation.13

The declaration did not define the term ‘apostolic,’ and the lack of discussion at the General

Chapter provides no direction either – ‘apostolic’ can have two different understandings. The

more accepted and traditional interpretation is active engagement in ministry beyond the walls of

the monastic cloister (e.g. schools, parishes, mission territories). The monks of the Swiss-

American Benedictine Congregation have been active in these religious activities since 1854. The

contrasting definition, however, is the role of contemplative prayer directed toward the world.

The prayer offered by a monk is seen to provide the necessary grace and support for those

engaging in active ministry, as such, the monk participates in the ministry of others. The radically

differing nature leads to confusion, but this ambiguity was the express purpose of the 1969

Covenant of Peace drafters “to cause deep study and growth of a basic monastic theology.”14 The

ability to maintain a communal monastic life was the principle criteria noted for a community’s

choice of apostolates; at the same time, the work is also meant to radiate from the monastery. The

13 Benedictine Federation of the Americas, Covenant of Peace: A Declaration on Benedictine Monastic Life, (Conception, MO: The Printery House, 1969), D8; hereafter 1969 Declaration.14 Special General Chapter, 18.

Bailey 9

vagueness is again left to interpretation with no guidance: Is the work communal or individual;

Does radiating imply work on the monastic property or are monks taking their witness to the

people? The 1969 Covenant of Peace was meant to provoke questions and not to provide the

definitive answers.

Following in the tradition of the Rule of Benedict, the declarations emphasized the life of

cenobites – those who live in a monastery and place themselves under a rule and an abbot (RB

1:2) – though not denying the legitimacy of the heremetical (solitary) life. The normative life of

Benedictine monasticism is cenobitic, however, where the brothers engage in “mutual respect,

common service, and support.” The brotherhood is important but not an end in itself. It is seen in

concert with union with God. The monks are united because they are united with God. (cf.

Matthew 5:24) The monk is therefore constantly listening for the interactivity of the Holy Spirit

in his and the community’s life, which leads to an authentic renewal in the monastic charism. A

curious phrase was inserted into Declaration 14: “This community does not exist outside of and

apart from the individuals who make it up.” Within the context of the treatment on community

life’s constitutive element, it appears out of place.15 Multiple interpretations are again possible,

but with the addition of the surrounding material a more definitive interpretation can be made.

Despite an apparent contradiction, it is more probable that it refers to an authentic Benedictine

community being possible only if all members are present and listening to the Holy Spirit’s

movements in their lives. These statements contain some of the more definitive declarations

made in the 1969 Covenant of Peace. Yet it still left untreated whether or not a monk must be

physically present at the monastery to provide participation in the communal activity. A later

15 1969 Declaration, D14-D16.

Bailey 10

juridic statement in the 1969 Covenant of Peace, in the “Constitutions” section, opens the

possibility for remote participation.16

The declarations for prayer and work continue a similar pattern of uncertainty. A two-fold

preference, found in the Rule as well, is given in Declarations 42-43. The monk is to prefer

nothing to Christ and prefer nothing to the Work of God. In the monastic tradition these

statements are viewed as synonymous. It also introduces the monastic maxim that a monk’s labor

is also his prayer. These declarations however are presented within a section devoted exclusively

to prayer. The 1969 Covenant of Peace states, “The Opus Dei is both the work of God (the work

He Himself is accomplishing) and the work for God (the monk’s labor of love for Him).” It

continues to describe the daily round of prayers as the way monk’s manifest God’s self-revelation

to the world.17 In the Christian context it refers implicitly to the life and actions of Jesus of

Nazareth. The practical implications of this theological understanding are the apostolic activities

of monks to and in the world.

The proclamation of “what God has done, … is doing, and … what He shall accomplish”

is further highlighted in the section on work.18 Work is understood to be a holy and creative

activity, which is necessary for the sustenance of the community and for the benefit of those in

need. In the Rule a high value is placed on labor as one of the principle activities of a monk (i.e.

prayer, study, and work). In the American culture work is often seen as an end, part of fulfilling

the American Dream. The person who has a high paying or important job is seen to have made it

in the world. The 1969 Covenant of Peace rejects this mentality for it sees work as a part of the

life of a monk and not his essence. The monk is not what he does (teacher, administrator, doctor,

16 Benedictine Federation of the Americas, Covenant of Peace: The Constitution, (Conception, MO: The Printery House, 1969), C71.17 1969 Declaration, D 42-43.18 1969 Declaration, D42.

Bailey 11

etc.) but who he is (Christian). As such there is a tension between “professionalism and

specialization of work” and the monastic life. It does not prohibit monks from earning

professional degrees, but “anytime a specialized type of work … inhibits … or suffocates

essential elements of the [monastic] experience, it becomes suspect.”19 Specialization does not

refer to secular areas alone. It can also include advanced degrees for teaching, preaching, spiritual

direction, and counseling. All of these activities are means by which a monk can be absent from

the monastery for long periods of time, performing spiritual and corporeal works of mercy.

In the final analysis on work, the 1969 Covenant of Peace states,

The monastic way of life determines the type of work a community undertakes. The work should not be the major determining factor in its way of life. Work for the Benedictine is a community experience, not only in attitude and in product, but also in process (C100). This principle militates against those work activities that remove a monk for long periods of time from the concrete experience of community life.20

The declaration references Constitution 100, which emphasizes the role of the Benedictine

Federation of the Americas as a supportive organization only. In addition, C71 noted above also

vitiates this declaration. The principle elucidated in D48 is lost for the sake of autonomy in

Benedictine monastic houses. The general discussion on the declarations show that amongst

some members of the Special General Chapter they desired them to “be treated merely as a

recommendation, in the sense that autonomy and pluralism be respected” so that “it need not be a

source for confusion and fundamental change in spirit.”21

The 1969 Covenant of Peace provided much material to contemplate the meaning of

monastic life in the contemporary context. It fulfilled its responsibility to spark discussions. By

the time of the 1975 General Chapter, however, the 1969 Covenant of Peace had grown to mythic

19 1969 Declaration, D47-48.20 1969 Declaration, D48.21 Special General Chapter, 61.

Bailey 12

proportions; it had transformed into a definitive statement in the minds of some monks.22 As a

definitive statement, the ambiguities were enshrined as monastic theology. It was not the

intention of the drafters of the 1969 Covenant of Peace for it to become the theology. In fact, Fr.

Ambrose Wathen, OSB who was on the original committee participated in the 1975 revision, as

well as, the Monastic Institutes in order to continue sparkng discussions on the meaning of

monastic life. The inability to create a substantive revision casts doubt on the effectiveness of the

Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation, as a corporate institution, to implement Perfectae

Caritatis.

Fr. Joel Rippinger, OSB provides a more optimistic view of the Post-Conciliar renewal

among American Benedictines in general. He sees the creation of a more mature Benedictine

presence in the United States that was able to grapple with the ancient questions of monasticism

of how to be involved in the world but not dominated by it.23 The process was begun and there

existed great excitement immediately following the Second Vatican Council for renewal. The

problem, at least among the Swiss-Americans, was the stalling of the reform at the congregational

level. The 1969 Covenant of Peace asked questions with the hope of generating answers. The

Monastic Institutes meeting after 1973 attempted to provide those answers. The failure was not

incorporating those deliberations in the 1975, 1991, or 2006 revisions to the declarations.24 The

individual monastic houses in the congregation have worked since 1969 to create equilibrium

between these differing dynamics, some have faired better than others. The collective wisdom of

all communities would help to provide direction for those who still struggle.

22 Benedictine Federation of the Americas, Official Minutes of the 1975 General Chapter Held at St. Meinrad Archabbey, St. Meinrad, IN, August 6-11, 1975, (St. Meinrad, IN: The Abbey Press, 1975), 3-4, 9-10, 50.23 Rippinger, 252-254.24 Bailey 8,11,17.

Bailey 13

The Declarations today are viewed as a static document, providing concrete understanding

for the monastic ideal. The continued reprinting with minor linguistic changes in 1991 and 2006

highlight this assumption. Yet even this cursory analysis on prayer and work in the Covenant of

Peace illustrates the great ambiguity that still exists. The third generation of monks, since

Vatican II, is now left with the task of renewal. The uncompleted task of yesteryear can still

remain the impetus to define the meaning of Benedictine monasticism in the twenty-first century.

Some communities are aging rapidly while others are experiencing resurgence. Those

communities, which are growing, typically have a united vision for their monastic future. The

Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation should always be concerned “to strengthen each local

monastic community in its proper life, witness, and apostolate.”25 A thorough re-examination of

the monastic ideal can only lead to a better future for monasticism.

25 Covenant of Peace: The Constitution, C100.

Bailey 14

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Benedictine Federation of the Americas. Covenant of Peace: A Declaration on Benedictine Monastic Life. Conception, MO: The Printery House, 1969.

________________________________. Covenant of Peace: A Declaration on Benedictine Monastic Life. Conception, MO: The Printery House, 1975.

________________________________. Official Minutes of the Special General Chapter of Renewal Held at St. Joseph Abbey, St. Benedict, LA, October 12-28, 1969. General Chapter 1969, Marmion Abbey Archives.

________________________________. Official Minutes of the 1972 General Chapter Held at Westminister Abbey, Mission, BC, Canada, August 6-12, 1972. General Chapter 1972, Marmion Abbey Archives.

________________________________. Official Minutes of the 1975 General Chapter Held at St. Meinrad Archabbey, St. Meinrad, IN, August 6-11, 1975. St. Meinrad, IN: The Abbey Press, 1975.

Luetkemeyer, Alexander. Report on the First Benedictine Institute. August 3, 1973, Conception Abbey and Seminary Library.

Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation. Declarations on the Holy Rule and Constitutions of the Swiss-American Congregation of the Order of Saint Benedict. St. Benedict, OR: Mount Angel Abbey, 1955.

Wathen, Ambrose. “Monastic Institute of Federation of Americas, 1973.” American Benedictine Review 25, no. 2 (June 1974) 246-86.

______________. “Monastic Institute of Federation of Americas, 1974.” American Benedictine Review 26, no. 4 (December 1975) 341-68.

Secondary Sources:

Assenmacher, O.S.B., Hugh. A Place Called Subiaco: A History of the Benedictine Monks in Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: Rose Publishing Company, 1977.

Bailey, O.S.B., Thomas. “Conversation Morum? The Development of A Declaration on Benedictine Monastic Life, 1975.” Hist 33:601 – Research Methods and Historiography, Northwest Missouri State University, 2009.

Bailey 15

Davis, O.S.B., Cyprian. “Abbot Ignatius Esser, OSB: Builder and Visionary, 1930-1955.” In To Prefer Nothing to Christ: Saint Meinrad Archabbey, 1854-2004, edited by Cyprian Davis, OSB, 391-436. St. Meinrad, IN: Abbey Press, 2004.

Defrange, Michael. “Saint Joseph Abbey: A Study in German Ethnic Assimilation and Monastic Adaptation to the Cultural Milieu of Southern Louisiana.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1992.

Dolan, Jay. In search of an American Catholicism: A History of Religion and Culture in Tension. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Endress, Richard. “The Enduring Vision: Stability and Change in an American Benedictine Monastery.” Ph.D. diss., Purdue University, 1974.

Hemmen, O.S.B., Alcuin. “The Post-Vatican II Thrust of American Benedictines.” American Benedictin Review 27, no. 4 (December 1976): 379-99.

Kleber, O.S.B., Albert. History of St. Meinrad Archabbey. St. Meinrad, IN: Grail Publications, 1954.

Lippy, Charles. Being Religious, American Style: A History of Popular Religiosity in the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994.

Malone, O.S.B., Edward. A History of Conception Colony, Abbey, & Schools. Omaha, NE: Interstate Printing Company, 1971.

McCrank, Lawrence. Mt. Angel Abbey: A Centennial History of the Benedictine Community and Its Library, 1882-1982. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1983.

Peifer, O.S.B., Claude J. “Monastic Renewal in Historical Perspective.” American Benedictine Review 19, no. 1 (March 1968): 1-23.

Rippinger, O.S.B., Joel. The Benedictine Order in the United States: An Interpretive History. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990.

Russell, O.S.B., Samuel. The Monastic Ideal: An Analysis of the Revised Constitutions of the Congregations of the Benedictine Confederation. S.T.L. thesis, Pontificium Anthenaeum Anselmianum, 1993.

Sause, O.S.B., Bernard A. “Today and Tomorrow: Current Monastic Renewal.” American Benedictine Review 16, no. 2 (June 1965): 219-41, 290.

Tkaick, O.S.B., Arnold. “The Twentieth Century Monk in the Kingdom of God.” American Benedictine Review 16, no. 2 (June 1965): 242-62.

Bailey 16

Whitley, Cuthbert Michael. “The Revitalization Process in Religious Life: A Study of a Benedictine Congregation.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1977.