#566

Note:  it's a bit hard to know where to start, there is so much of interest coming in!  Here's something to chew on.....

SOME STRUCTURES RESOLVED - HERE ARE THE VOTES TO PROVE IT.

On Constitution #128 – to limit the term of the Rector Major to only 2 consecutive 6-year terms, vote taken was: 
172-Yes, 37-No, 7-Juxtamodum, 1 Abstain. 

On Constitution #142 to limit the term of the General Council members to 12 years in their respective departments, the vote taken was:  180-Yes, 29-No, 6-Juxtamodum, 1 Abstain. 
On Constitution #133 to separate social communication and Salesian Family, vote taken was:  202-Yes, 13-No, 1-Juxtamodum, 1-Abstain.  On Constitution #134 to give the Salesian Family to the Vicar, vote taken was: 195-Yes, 19-No, 2-Juxtamodum, 1-Abstain. 

On Constitution #137 to set up the sector of
social communication, vote taken was: 206-Yes, 8-No, 2-Juxtamodum, 1-Abstain.
 All these required a 2/3 majority, which was calculated to be 145 based on 217 Chapter members eligible to vote present.  (NR)

NOW A VIEW FROM BEHIND THE SCENES.

The sixth commission introduced the topic of separating the Salesian Family and social communication sectors with the expectation that we would give the
Salesian Family to the Vicar General.  In a preliminary vote on the available options a few days ago, that choice had the most support.  (Don't forget: to change a constitution, it takes a two-thirds vote.)  When the discussion started, we got a number of surprises. 

Up until that time, we were told that the General Council was in favor of the proposal.  Many of us were relying on their wisdom to aid in making the decision.  Fr. Luc Van Looy spoke in favor of the proposal of giving the Salesian Family to the Vicar.  However, he did so without the ringing endorsement that would have made this proposal a slam-dunk.  (Please excuse the March Madness allusion.)  As I heard him, Fr. Luc said that it was possible.  In fact, he continued, it might be good if provincials put the province Salesian Family projects into the hands of their vicars. That sounded like an ad hominem argument to me.  It was clear that very few of the provincials were willing to give their vicars responsibility for animating the Salesian Family.

We were surprised to discover that there was no consensus on the council with regard to the Salesian-Family-to-the-Vicar proposal.  In fact, at least one of the councilors was publically against it.  He spoke strongly and personally in favor of two full time councilors for social communications and Salesian Family.  Faced with this unexpected turn of events, the chapter did what it has always done: when there is a lack of clarity, vote against everything!!  All proposals failed.  (The power of the secret ballot is a wonderful thing!) 

On Saturday we returned to the same question.  This time, the assembly seemed determined to make a decision.  The question of separating the sectors of
social communications and Salesian Family had been taken up by three previous General Chapters without final solution.  We did not want to delay that decision for another six years.  After an hour and a half of futile discussion (that mostly bewailed the tortuous path that led to this point), the provincial of Dimapur, India (I call him "Thomas."  If you saw his last name, you would call him "Thomas" as well!), delivered the authoritative ammunition needed to take a decision.  He brought out an old state of the congregation report written by Fr. Vigano.  (It must have been from the 23rd General Chapter in 1990.)  In that document, Fr. Vigano stated that it was clearly within the scope and possibility of the Vicar General to assume responsibility for animating the Salesian Family.  The assembly greeted those words with a gigantic sigh.  That was the last words heard in the debate.  The vote, immediately following, was overwhelmingly in favor of giving the Salesian Family to the vicar general.  (TD).

AND FINALLY - NO MORE TIPS ABOUT WHO THE NEXT RM MIGHT BE!   Australians, they say, will bet on two flies crawling up a wall.  'Even money' on the Easter Handicap? (JF)