For those who are following the process, and who happen to enjoy complex details and puzzles, note that this morning we finished Route 10 in Phase 2, which was the second day of the Dreaming portion of our process, and moved into Route 11 in Phase 3, the first day of the Strength in Decision major section, the last of three, of the overall plan, initiated by the definition of Pathways of Transformation, the first of two steps. (I had to look all of that up. Let's hope it's not on the quiz.) The previously published detailed daily schedule is now being appropriately adapted each day, since some things took less than than anticipated - the approval of independent group statements, for example - and others took much longer - the discussion of the "values", for example, that took place yesterday.
.jpg)
Some things in the schedule are really quite unpredictable. When we started at 9:00 am, we continued in the approval process of each group's "process" and "results" statements. The approval for the first one - a rather long one in Spanish - was substantially changed to now include parts of the statement that had needed further refinement.The next set from the ENG1 group passed without any comment or amendments. The last set, which came from the ENG2 group (my group), was another story. For 40 minutes the assembly engaged in a wide-ranging conversation about one of the elements in the set. The conversion statement was "A journey of synodality based on trust and availability" and the hoped-for results at the end of the next seven years were "Radical availability of Brothers", "Vibrant Lasallian communities where interiority is fostered", and "Sustainable structures of governance and formation for the Lasallian Family (shared authority, reflect realities, etc.)". The catalyst was the phrase "Lasallian communities". It appears that an elephant in the room managed to squeeze itself through the mousehole of a single phrase.
At breakfast, it appears that the memo
about what to wear was read by some.
about what to wear was read by some.
There were references to different parts of the Rule that defined what "community" meant, pitting "the Institute is open to new forms of community life." (#54.4) against how the Rule defines a Brothers community (#64) and what that means in Canon law. It led to the introduction of an amendment to remove the word "Lasallian" from the "vibrant Lasallian communities" phrase. This was eventually rejected by a large majority. Heather addressed what seemed to be the fear of some, when she said: "This does not call for all communities to become mixed communities." People seemed to relax a little after that. In the end, the whole thing passed with 63 votes out of 70, a good example of crowd wisdom on display.
There was a break, and then Sr. Leslie introduced the next phase of the process. In the next three days will be "building new paths of transformation" (which to me means getting down to business and making some decisions) and moving into "transformation" groups (otherwise known as interest groups). But first we would have to decide on what areas would be addressed. Hence, we went back to our language groups for about 30 minutes and came up with 3-5 areas ("transformative threads") that we thought were the most important. Then we returned to the Aula Magna where each group reported its recommendations to everyone.
As the secretaries met with the Coordinator and Sr. Leslie to refine all the options into a sensible list to present to the assembly, the Moderator asked me to read the "Letter to the Delegates of AIMEL III" that I had volunteered to write, along with Brothers Carlos Gabriel Gómez (RELAL), Alberto Gómez Barruso (RELEM), Christopher Soosai (PARC) and Rodrigue Toeppen (RELAF). The others had provided input, and I had written the final copy. It was a rather long letter and took a while to read out loud. Since this was read in a roomful of educators, it wouldn't leave the room without recommendations and group edits. Such was the case, with each paragraph considered separately via the Moderator, but the result was definitively improved. Changes were made, and it will be re-introduced tomorrow (I think).
The secretaries at work with the Coordinator
At 12:25 pm, the secretaries group returned and provided their consolidated list of "pathways" - interest groups in pedestrian English. We were released for lunch and resumed at 3:00 pm to consider and vote on each one. For the next ninety minutes, each of the seven "pathways" were considered, with some being approved without a ripple while others experiencing more of a riptide, amendment following amendent - almost all of them finally rejected. In the end, and a fine testimony of the work of the secretaries from the language groups who consolidated them, the list was exactly the same as they had first proposed.
- Evangelization in service to education for the poor (Justice and Peace) [Sailed through]
- Spiritual life: Return to the Gospel, radical availability of the Brother [Amendment to leave out "Spiritual life" failed]
- New structures of leadership and governance. [Sailed through]
- Integral ecology [Two attempts to join it with another one on the list failed]
- Association for a bold and prophetic lasallian family. [Attempt to join it with the next one failed]
- Vocation and Accompaniment [Sailed Through]
- Solidarity, viability, and sustainability [Attempt to combine it with another one failed]
The final set was passed with 67 out of 70 votes. So those are our groups, and we were invited to go online and choose our first and second preferential choices, which we did. Another huddle in the back room then occurred with the secretaries and the Coordinator, assigning Brothers to the groups according to their preferences. The rest of us hung around in the Aula Magna until at 4:30 we were told to go and have our afternoon break.
The waiting game.
When we returned at 5:00 pm, the distribution lists and locations for our meetings were put on the screen, and after some final instructions and reminders, we were sent to our rooms to organize ourselves and get the job done. We are to develop a global statement for our area that includes no more than five lines of action, and this will be brought back to the assembly for consideration and adoption. There were four principles to keep in mind: broaden the limits of the status quo; challenge suppositions or common routines; base the actions on what has worked in the past; transmit positive images of ourselves. My group was also my first choice: Vocation and Accompaniment.
Our group was in the basement in Room 33. When we got there, the door was locked and no one had a key. I finally found Br. Nestor who knew where the key was located and gave it to me for safe-keeping. Pretty quickly, we decided that we could work with English and Spanish as our main languages, but that we would need interpretation. Luckily, Jorge Sierra was also a member of the group, and he was the translator for this first session, although we asked to have a translator assigned to us for our other meetings.
Between 5:45 pm and 6:40, we chose a Moderator, Br. William Fernando Duque from Bogota who is bilingual and at the University there, and we chose a secretary, yours truly. Then William highlighted the importance of Circular 475 and urged us to read it again, if we could. He then invited us to share our background and reasons for our interest in this topic. With Jorge Sierra's help in translating, each person did so. It was evident that all of those in the room were used to this sort of setting and did what was asked with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of rich information. We finished about 10 minutes before the 6:45 pm Mass and will resume our work tomorrow morning, working all day on the topic that has been entrusted to us.
The contemporary holy water font.
