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 ...”
