The Missions General Councillor has asked for comments on the initial draft of the 'Framework' from members of the Advisory Council. He suggested that as I might be the only member who has been through this process of drawing up a framework from the ground up (SSCS – Salesian Social Communications System) my comments might be useful from that perspective.

A couple of provisos: I have read only the English version of the initial draft, and annotated that version, and as I am currently drawing up an extended 'Salesian Termbase' for the Congregation, which hopefully will find its way into 5 languages by 2015 (it is currently in English) I have more than the usual interest in the terminology employed in any of our official documents.

I will, then, comment from these perspectives:

1. An overall view, simply drawing on the experience of SSCS, which is now in its first major revision draft - it was first published in 2005.

2. A terminologist's view, with comments on that element

3. A critical view from a linguistic point of view, recognising that this is indeed a first draft and that there will be errors which are not of major import, but it helps to have someone do a proof-reading of the text, even at this stage.

The very fact that the Missions Department has chosen to put forward a framework is laudable. Our experience with SSCS is that many other Congregations admire and request copies of the document - we know of only one other Congregation in the world that has a similar framework.

There is little doubt that a framework statement helps our Salesians and now especially our lay partners, some of whom are taking up the Delegate's role, to understand where we are coming from.

Our SSCS is one of several connected documents; we have already worked on the three to see that they harmonise, and we are now considering publishing them together. I guess what I'm saying here is that there is a distinction between a 'framework' with general guidelines, and a handbook or other documents which go into greater detail. There needs to be a little care to see that the Framework in question does not get out of kilter, either offering too much (and too heavy) general material, or too much detail. So one question: are other documents envisaged to go with it?

2.1 content: too much

I believe there is too much doctrinal material in this Framework, either 'up front' or by subterfuge! Footnotes are the subterfuge. The early part of the document is too heavy in my view.

There are two meanings of 'framework' for today's reader. One is the more normal one, but it carries a visual side to it - people think of a skeleton arrangement, like the wooden or metal structures underlying a building. That's a 'sparse' model. But anybody dealing with the world wide web and software today thinks of another meaning of 'framework', which is a collection of classes, applications, software 'libraries', in other words components which work together to produce the whole; this is an interesting model of cooperation.

Question: does the current 'Framework' easily suggest either of these? I suspect not, so it could be improved to mirror one or the other or a bit of both. More sparse, more obviously a set of components which make the whole work. This is where we had a head-start with SSCS. It was built on a 'system' model (we went right back to Don Bosco to find the term) and we added the concept of 'ecosystem' (not without some debate and a few negative reactions initially) to this. But the result was that it gives one the feel of hanging together. That's what the current Framework could have more of in my view.

How might we achieve this? Even visually by shorter paragraphs, more sub-headings (meaningful ones, not just for the sake of it), giving a better impression of the 'building blocks' that make up mission activity, or missionary activity (I'll come to this one later). I don't even think there would be too much harm in adopting something similar to the overall SSCS outline: identity-function-organisation. The Mission Framework kind of has that anyway but it's the heavy stuff early up that cloud that structure in my view.

Maybe another way to put this comment would be to say that the document looks more like an inspirational document (the 'Common Mission Statement' for the Salesian family kind) than a framework. We Salesians tend to head for the inspirational material too easily. That has its place. I do not believe this Framework is the place for that kind of material. Produce another document for that - or maybe there is one already? Then add to it!

I would make a distinction between Part II and Part III in this regard. Where does one start or stop with the Church's material on Mission? But the Mission(ary) dimension of the Salesian Charism is a little more circumscribed, so it may be possible to present it in a more structured and concrete way. At the moment it is too 'inspirational'.

Let me slip in another comment here: we made a careful decision with the title of SSCS: we can use that acronym in every one of the five official languages without forcing the issue. Of course it is Sistema Salesiano di Comunicazione Sociale or the equivalent, in four of these languages.

In English we simply say Salesian Social Communication System and the acronym still works. At the moment this cannot be said for the 'Framework'. I'd give considerable thought to this issue - it really,really helps when you can use the same acronym (because that's what people will do, not the whole long phrase).

2.2 content: not enough!

No doubt there will need to be some filling out of some of the later parts - the opposite process! First I was complaining about too much, now I'm complaining about too little! No, what I'm saying is that when you get to functions, there's a good chance there are a few more functions to think about. And we ran into some problems in this section, which we haven't yet finally sorted. (Referring to SSCS). Role details might sound great in Rome but lousy in Puntas Arenas for some poor guy who's rowing upstream without a paddle. We have found that either our 'role details' were too idealistic from the outset, or things have changed so much in five years that they no longer apply - if they ever did.

In no. 135 there is brief mention of social communication. In reality, the role of communications in the entire mission endeavour in this document is very, very thin. It might be enough to read Franz-Jozef Eilers SVD on /Evangelising communication/ (he is explaining how each of the Continental Synods had so much to say about the importance of this) to realise that somewhere, somehow, we might need to strengthen an understanding of how much has changed in recent years where missions and communication are concerned. New missionaries are moving into cultures that are partly created by media. Social and personal media now offer an entirely new mission field! Is the 'digital continent' just a nice turn of phrase from a doddering old pope, or a fresh, vital image from a man who gave the world an expression it had not used before (I have checked - Ratzinger came up with phrase. It is a true neologism in linguistic terms). He asked for missionaries to be active in it!

2.3 end product multichannel?

I wonder if some thought has been given to whether this is a 'paper' document or a modern multichannel document. The decision has some bearing on how the document is to be structured. Again we have looked at this with SSCS. So much has changed in five years. Even the mere fact that the original SSCS was printed as a book (many thousands of copies many of which lie in the cavernous underground of the Pisana, untouched and now obsolete). A paper version is needed, but also a web version and not only. It may need to be mixed-and-matched. So the solution is to provide the basic structure on a very clear semantic basis. I am using the term we use when we do markup for the sdb.org web pages. We call things what they need to be called with semantic tags like <article> <header> <footer>, <aside> and so on. The product can then be instantaneously sent to paper/print if we want or the web or a mobile phone or even sound! All with a single click, so what I am saying here is to think of 'Framework' which has nothing to do with paper initially but everything to do with meaningful structure. It will be fully flexible that way. Of course, you are not going to call Part I <article> or give it any tag that is visible, but it could help to have someone think through the underlying structure as a web designer would, with a single question - does all this hang together as a semantic structure, i.e. could it be 'webbified' easily? If the answer is no then the structure would need re-thinking. It's just that there is an added factor to literacy today - and it is what I have just been describing.

The comments in the 'overview' would be valid across languages. The comments I make here pertain largely to English but may be valid for one or other language other than English.

3.1 Title

The title raises the question of terminology immediately. The question is whether this is a document about missionaries or about mission. If it is the former, and only that, then missionary activity is fine. Some may wish to discuss whether or not activity is the best term, but I am interested in the compound term for the moment.

Missionary activity has a good Vatican pedigree if we turn to the English translation of the Decree Ad Gentes (except in the title of that document, oddly, where its speaks of mission activity)! In fact the English translation of the Ad Gentes Decree is hardly consistent at any point, possibly because the translators have never fully acquainted themselves with some fundamental differences between Latin-Italian-English! In Latin and Italian what is translated as missionary activity could, in English, be either mission activity (activity pertaining to mission) or missionary activity (activity pertaining to the person or role of the missionary). In other words, mission in English is both noun and adjective. In Latin and Italian it is only a noun.

This question needs sorting out for our document. I just have a feeling that missionary activity is being over-used and is being applied in places where mission activity would be preferable. I find this issue appearing in paragraph after paragraph and there are certainly many cases where mission x would be more appropriate than missionary x.

Devotees of Mary Help of Christians is a deprecated term; we find it in the first paragraph. The term used in English is either members of the Mary Help of Christians Association or simply ADMA members.

capsulated, also in the first paragraph, does not exist. The word is encapsulated.

At the conclusion of the introduction, reference is made to organic collection. Unfortunately in English the first idea that comes to mind is a compost heap. The appropriate word here might be systematic or organised or something along those lines. Organic as used here is what we call a 'calque' in linguistic terms - a straight translation of a foreign term without regard to what it might mean in the target language.

Part 1, no. 7: Procures. We have to stop using this word in English for several reasons. It does not exist as a noun in English and I would not support the argument that we have a right to introduce it, flouting this morpho-syntactic fact. We are dealing with an area where we want non-Salesians to understand us. Use of /Procure/ immediately leads to misunderstanding. If you want to try a simple test on words that you have some doubt about run them in Google search and see what you get on the first page of results. It never fails to enlighten! This offers the second reason. In the first result - the very first result, in Google, we get the information that 'procure' (this time as verb) also means to incite to 'promiscuous sexual intercourse'. I think enough has been said. For the mother-tongue English speaker, Procure as we are currently using it, leads to ridicule.

The question is its replacement. In the same document I think we find Mission Procurement. Marginally better because procurement does exist in nominal form, though I'm afraid it does not escape the other problem. Mission office? Development Office? Mission and development Office? Project Office? We are certainly not the only organisation in the world running these kinds of offices, so let's examine carefully what others, especially in the Catholic sector, are calling them.

Non-Govermental Organisations: I am not sure of the debate which differentiates between an NGO and a Not-for-profit. Does this need to be taken into account? It is simply a question.

Delegate of Missionary Animation (no. 10): Two issues here, one being the genitive phrase, which is Italian, not English. At the very least we would say Missionary Animation Delegate (using the same explanation as I have used in reference to the Framework's title), but this for me is one case where I would almost certainly employ Mission and not Missionary as the adjective. The various delegates we have as part of Province structures, are responsible for a sector, not a particular activity in that sector. The delegate in this case is the Mission Delegate. He may or may not also have a role which involves Missionaries. As to the question of animation it will be understood without difficulty in a Salesian context. It will not be understood outside a Salesian context, or only with explanation.

Framework of Youth Ministry (no. 10). I hope that in English they call it Youth Ministry Framework if they are going to use that sort of term for it.

Educative-pastoral community (no. 11): the compound form educative-pastoral is a calque. We do not do this in English. We say Educative and Pastoral Community. There are other references to this which need tidying up: No. 127 for example.

Lay partners (no. 11): ok, but in some places they say Salesian lay mission partners which would cover the whole phrase Lay partners in Salesian mission. Which do we prefer?

The three departments of the Salesian Mission (no. 11): a term in flux. Who knows what will happen to it at GC27. But at least it deserves a footnote since it is a neologism and would not be well understood by the majority of readers.

[I am skipping Part II entirely because in my view it might change radically - or it should! In that case I'd be wasting time commenting on details].

Caffasso (Part III no. 74): Don Bosco made that mistake!

Da mihi animas iuvenum (no 76): Show me the evidence that Don Bosco said that, and so on for etiam plebium and etiam animas gentium. He might have said it - I am not contradicting the fact, but if he said it footnote the reference. If he did not say it, but it's our way of putting things, then this simply reinforces the idea that we have an 'inspirational' rather than a concrete document here.

catholic readings would need to be Catholic Readings.

twenty Souvenirs (no 76): the expression is quaint and makes our document archaic. He offered confidential reminders or advice. Today a souvenir is one of those cheap things you buy in St Peter's Square under considerable duress. It is kitsch. If we have too many strange and archaic terms, we lend a strange and archaic tone to our document. physiognomy (no. 78): another calque. It is usable but faintly archaic. In this case I'd say face.

educating and evangelising (no. 81): the reference is to C. 31 but C. 31 has this expression in another (and better) form. It might better to rephrase the whole section to incorporate the more direct infinitive, form. Gerunds are notoriously weak in English and are yet one more 'weak' indicator we want to avoid.

No. 88 is a discussion about the Missions as a 'sector', although that word is not being used. But I would use it. I think it is increasingly important to use the distinctions already enshrined in the Constitutions, where reference is made to settore and then there are other organisational elements picked in later documents which put the settore in concrete terms. We can keep Ricceri's comment, but No. 88 offers an opportunity to say that Missions is a sector with all that implies - sectors are like the sacraments! They've already been defined and are unlikely to change. The activities and departments, and areas on the the hand might freely change.

No. 94: I checked the reference. GC19 refers to both a Central Mission Office and central missionary offices. The problem is not a new one, then! But in the reference in our document, given the capitalisation, the term has to be what GC19 is calling a Central Mission Office not Central Missionary Office, which GC19 did not sanction. I did not check the SGC reference in No 96, but it needs to be checked - and we might indeed find a discrepancy. As I have said earlier, even the Vatican translators didn't have a handle on this issue, so GC19's translators might be equally confused. It is up to us to clear it up once and for all.

[Just in parentheses, all this historical material, while maybe necessary, does not belong in such an elaborated way in this document].

No. 106 - not the 20th GC obviously.

Integral evangelisation (No. 110): what does integral mean here? The section draws largely from EN but this document does not use that term at any point. /Integral/ is not well understood in English. We find it again in No. 114.

educator-evangeliser (no. 133): educator and evangeliser.

Functions Part IV: I have already indicated that we ran into some difficulties with the term /function/ in SSCS. I'm not saying don't use it, I'm just saying that we need to clarify what is a function and what is not.

Policy (No. 144): Policy in today's world is not a word that can be flung around carelessly. Policies are well-structured. We are using the term here. Does what follows look like a real policy or policies? Orjust another part of a function.

Province Commission for Missionary Animation (No. 191): Is this exactly what we want to call it? Does such a commission exist anywhere? Is it called that?

Missionary Museum (No 205): I guess that's what it is, but that's not what they call it at Colle Don Bosco. net even in translation.

No 210: I see we have Project Office and Mission Office here. Sounds good to me!

Multi-directional communication (No. 211): Maybe this is where my thoughts on multi-channel communication could fit in.

Just a few comments here as I realise this document may change quite a bit, and there will be a chance later to tidy up some of the language issues.

I would avoid an 'x of y' syntax, a 'genitive' syntax, in the main title of the document, at least in English. It smacks of Italian and Romance languages. English is direct and wants to have the core content up front, literally, so 'Salesian Missionary Activity Framework' if we end up staying with all those words. The 'framework is the least important aspect. Salesian comes first, identifying the kind of missionary activity.

This genitive syntax appears in very many places. Not always but almost always, any 'x of y' phrasing in this document mirrors languages other than English. I would recommend the more direct subject-first approach in most cases.

We do not use the Italian virgolette («») in English. This document is full of them.

In the introduction the term /synthetically/ is used three times within a dozen lines. Find synonyms.

Sentence structures overall are heavy and need reducing. This, as it stands, is a major linguistic issue to be confronted for the document in English.

References to 'Don X' after Ricceri's time (in fact I'd say after Ziggioti's time) should change to 'Fr'.

There are a number of references to the 'Framework of the Missionary Activity'. The definite article has no place in this phrase.

And that's about it after a cursory reading of the document. I am sure a much closer reading could elicit further points of discussion.

Julian Fox sdb

Author: jbfox <jbfox@sdb.org> <mailto:jbfox@sdb.org>

Date: 2010-09-12 22:56:16 CEST

HTML generated by org-mode 6.34c in emacs 23