3394 Ferrari is in good nick!
austraLasia #3394

 

Ferrari is in good nick!

ROME: 15 March 2014
--
"Ferrari is in good nick. To tackle the Grand Prix (next 6 years) what we need are not structural changes but functional ones; better coordination in the Ferrari Team."

One wonders if there was a moment of distraction at the General Chapter (and will be over the next three days) as the engines roar at the Melbourne Grand Prix this weekend!  On the other hand, is the above comment, further detailed below, perhaps one of the more spot-on ones in the current debate over structure of central leadership of the Congregation (and its inevitable wider implications at province level)? It looks like the GC27 is beginning to arrive at some of the deeper principles behind 'animation and government'.

And the Drafting Group move to their summary of discussion of the 2nd core topic: prophets of fraternity, after some clear reminders from the RM.


The Department vs Secretariat debate
On several occasions now, the Juridical Commission has floated this idea of a Secretariat to take over the functional duties of what were once 'Departments', to reduce numbers in the General Council (why, some ask? What's magical about a number?) or to resolve coordination problems or for some other reason.

First of all, it is worth pointing to an inherent difficulty for anyone who only knows the English version of the Constitutions. Perhaps on another occasion we might run a list of problems with the English translation of the C&R, but one GC27 member put his finger on it (speaking in Italian and referring to the Italian Constitutions) when he pointed out that we need to be clear about terminology - C. 133 speaks of 'Sectors' not 'Departments' represented by Councillors.  The problem of course, is that the English version of the Constitutions mistranslated this and referred to 'councillors in charge of special departments'. This means that people coming out of that interpretation would not always be clear what the distinction is and what its implications are.

That aside, what did our 'Ferrari' man mean by his image?  Here, in summary is what he said:

The current animation and government structures in the Congregation were set up by the Special General Chapter and in principle overcame the problem of centralisation and a too-vertical alignment of animation and government.

Overall this configuration has worked and produced good results, with its limitations and difficulties.

But this notion of 'secretariat' could have some real problems to it. It seems already to be loading more responsibility onto the Rector Major.  It may simply be a return to the very situation the SGC in its wisdom sought to overcome with the current structure now codified in the Constitutions. What would be the nature and role of the one in charge of a Secretariat and how would that actually help the RM? The complementarity and mutual enrichment possible in the General Council now would be diminished by fiddling with the structure this way.

"Ferrari is in good nick ... "

Communications
It was the turn of Communications yesterday, and though the argument was a little different from that of the Missions (this latter was proposed as being split up amongst existing 'Sectors' - there's that word again - while the proposal is that Communications go directly under the RM as a secretariat), the debate was not, in essence, so different, perhaps a little more varied and balanced for and against.

The points against following the Juridical Commission's proposal, other than the deeper issue highlighted in the 'Ferrari' comment above, followed more or less the lines indicated below:


- This sector has had its own department and councillor for just 12 years - hardly enough to properly evaluate it and the wisdom involved in bringing it into being by a previous General Chapter (to do this we need more facts, better understanding of the history behind the decision, and a real knowledge of all the elements involved).
- Choice of structure in central government has implications for the whole Congregation - it sends messages and it also affects how things might be set up in provinces, regions.  A secretariat might well be sending a poor message.
- The argument for a secretariat seems based on more agile functionality but what it loses out on is identity, unity while the problems of coordination are a separate issue and not addressed at all by this proposal.
- The current setup allows for a better overview of the Congregation and its mission, and the mutual enrichment that comes from Missions and Communications represented within it would be considerably diminished if they were not there. What kind of message is that sending confreres?

Straw vote on this issue will take place Saturday morning, 15 March.

Drafting Group - RM's advice - next steps
The Drafting group is working through each core topic (3 of them) and Saturday will present no. 2 (Prophets of Fraternity).  These are being done at the listening-interpretation stage, while the 'way forward', which is the practical side of things is yet to come. But ideas are coming in for this.  Amongst them (for no 1 on mystics of the Spirit):
- emphasis on the personal project of life at the level of the confrere himself
- getting to know and appreciate our sources from Don Bosco, Francis de Sales, Salesian spirituality, this too at the level of the individual confrere.
- at community level - the community project of lfie to receive more emphasis along with times for community revision
- provinces to do more for formation of rectors in leadership, spiritual accompaniment
- RM and council to ensure that the 'Fonti salesiane' are translated into all the major languages
- an ongoing formation centre to be set up in every region.
These are merely suggestions (and there are more of them) at the moment and go to the Drafting Group.

The Rector Major has advised the Drafting Group, currently presenting its summary of Core Topic no. 2, Prophets of Fraternity (Saturday 15 March) to go even further in seeing the entire Chapter theme in the light of Evangelii Gaudium. In doing so he also poured calming oil on rough seas given two days of some fairly intense debate, as we know. He did this by citing no. 25 of EG: "I hope that all communities will devote the necessary effort to advancing along the path of a pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they presently are. “Mere administration” can no longer be enough. Throughout the world, let us be “permanently in a state of mission”, adding 'Congregation' after 'communities' above. He indicated what should be the Drafting Group's point of departure, following EG: Gospel joy. He says that no. 11 EG is a good indication of what our Chapter theme is about: "Whenever we make the effort to return to the source and to recover the original freshness of the Gospel, new avenues arise, new paths of creativity open up, with different forms of expression, more eloquent signs and words with new meaning for today’s world. Every form of authentic evangelisation is always “new”" then pointedly went on to cite no. 27 "I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelisation of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with himself ...