Association An Ever-Present Ever-Changing
Reality
"A Gift Half Understood"
Paul McAuley, FSC
Proceedings of Regional Convocation II
Moraga, California
August 9-15, 1990
Saturday, August 11, 1990
General Session - 8:30 a.m
Brother Donald Mouton has already dealt with the
history of association in our Institute. I have been asked to say something about the
present reality of association. In the title I describe association as an ever-present,
yet ever-changing reality. And I think we can apply what T. S. Eliot said about the
Incarnation -- "a gift half-understood" -- to our gift of association.
Inevitably briefly, I shall try to say something about the following aspects:
° the meanings given to association
° reactions to the present developments
° examples of association at present being practiced
° certain inconsistencies in our thinking
° and a look toward the future and the questions it raises
1. The Various Meanings Given to Association
As soon as we start to speak of definition we begin to see the confusion that presently
exists: the same word is used to refer to various degrees of membership and commitment.
Too often there is an automatic confusion between association, the spirit of
association, and associations.
Distinction is made also as the various levels of association (cf. the comments of Brother
Sebá and Brother Valladolid):
a) those who are committed for their whole life - in an
exclusive way associated together and forming a society;
b) those working in our schools, with dedication - but outside of the society - because
they have been called to live a family life-style.
The first group represents the Brothers, the members of the
Institute. The second group includes all our lay collaborators. We are told that the two
groups have "different roles," though they are not defined clearly. I shall
return later to the inconsistencies in some present thinking.
According to Brother Superior's address to the Lasallian World Confederation (December
1989):
The role of religious in the ministry of Christian education,
religious such as the Brothers of the Christian Schools, has changed. It is now, as our
Rule has clearly stated, ... a role of collaboration."
The Institute's Secretary for the educative mission, Brother
José Maria Valladolid, goes even further: "the together and by association of
the Brothers is extended to our collaborators." However, Brother Hernando Seba, in a
recent edition of Lasalliana, seems to imply that our lay collaborators are invited
to be inspired by the "spirit of association." Still, today there is a tendency
to reserve the expression together and by association to the Brothers who make such
a vow, and the expression the spirit of association to our other lay collaborators.
That there is confusion is, I think, quite clear. Brother Genaro, Vicar General, in
addressing the Lasallian World Confederation in December 1989, stated:
This together and by association needs to be explained
and redefined. This expression originated in and for the Brothers' Institute. There it has
a meaning and results in practices which do not necessarily correspond with what we have
in mind when we use the expression in connection with the Lasallian Family.
What is clear is the vocation and membership
have - in some contexts - taken on new meanings: vocation, including a Lasallian
vocation, is no longer necessarily seen as linked to the vowed life, and membership
does not necessitate professing the vows. The changing terminology is symbolic of a
changing order.
2. How have we reacted to recent developments - where association has taken
on a broader meaning in the context of a shared mission and a Lasallian Family?
At first sight we can see two opposing reactions: one which sees this broadening of
association as a threat, and the other that sees it as an opportunity. For some Brothers
it represents a threat to former, private symbols, to former structures - the unwelcome
encroachment of strangers into a private domain. For others, this broadening of
association is an opportunity to be creative and to bring added strength and a needed
support system to our mission - a means of providing wider resources.
The first position might represent what we could call a hierarchical and separatist
approach, with the emphasis upon how our status is different from that of other lay
collaborators. The second reaction represents an emphasis placed upon the mission - where
communities, made up of Brothers and other lay people, are equal partners in the mission.
However, between these two opposing positions there is perhaps a third, more common,
reaction which views the present developments from the position of the institution, as a
means for that institution to guarantee its survival. It is very difficult to judge
motivations for invoking the need to extend the Lasallian Family, but what is certain is
that the present phenomena of shared mission, Lasallian Family, and association with our
lay collaborators have come to the fore precisely as the number of Brothers has been
decreasing. So we see, simultaneously, a decrease in the number of Brothers and a
multiplication of ministries in the Church. There are those who see present developments
as an attempt to breath a bit of new life into an otherwise dying body, while others are
looking openly to the next stage of that body's existence.
3. Examples of association at present being practiced
The tradition of other lay people collaborating in our mission is nothing particularly
new, and a glance at present statistics reveals that 33,000 other lay men and women are
associated with 8,400 Brothers, of whom perhaps only 50% are still directly engaged in
school or educational work.
Certain forms of other lay people's association with the Institute's mission are
universally known, if not practiced, throughout the Institute: Signum Fidei, former
students' associations, and the Lasallian World Confederation. But even within these
groups there is great variety among different geographical locations.
The Union of Catechists of Jesus Crucified and Mary Immaculate is a secular
Institute that takes its inspiration from Lasallian spirituality. A Brother Assessor,
appointed by Brother Superior, has an advisory role.
A recent development in France is the establishment of the Lasallian Third Order,
with at present about half a dozen members. It is a rather interesting phenomenon within
what is already a congregation of lay men.
The French Region has shown creativity by setting up the Association la Salle,
which is the body (constituted of an equal number of Brothers and lay directors) that
oversees the administration and legal representation for all Lasallian institutions in the
French Region. Other organs, such as the French Lasallian Centre, have been set up in
order to provide for the continuing formation of Brothers and lay people together.
Probably the best known group of Sisters who are associated with our mission is the Hermanas
Guadalupanas de La Salle, founded by a Brother in Mexico. There are now Lasallian
Sisters established in one or another from in the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Brothers in several other countries, Spain for example, are in communication with other
groups of women who are seeking a more structured form of linking with the Brothers'
Institute.
In some regions, Sisters belonging to other congregations are very closely involved in our
mission and even share community life with our Brothers. This would be the case in certain
retreat centre communities in the United States and in Ireland and in another mixed
community in South Africa.
There are Districts where lay volunteers, both men and women, live and work alongside the
Brothers for a period of a year or so. Many Districts have short-term missionary projects
where Brothers and other lay people practice a very concrete form of interdependence,
giving, and receiving.
In some countries (Monterey, Mexico is an example) the majority of the catechetical work
in our schools is organized and carried out by the pupil's parents, working in association
with one or two Brothers who supervise and encourage. Each of you here would be able to
complete this picture with examples you are aware of.
Not only is it important to note the variety that exists in terms of association across
the Institute, it is equally important to recognize that what motivates association may be
quite different from place to place. To take one simple material example, teaching in a
Lasallian school represents a considerable economic sacrifice for teachers in certain
parts of the world, whereas in other countries our Lasallian teachers are much better paid
than in the state schools. Waving the Lasallian flag might imply quite different levels of
commitment.
The association of other lay people with the Lasallian mission is already a clearly
established fact. Where there is much less clarity is in some of the thinking around and
justification of this fact. But that already brings me to my next point.
4. Certain apparent inconsistencies in present thinking and language regarding
association
I suggest we have to avoid two main dangers at present: one is to be so enthusiastic to
involve all comers in our mission that we apply terms and words in an equal way to all
groups. Secondly, there is the danger of using an apparently open, generous language when
speaking of shared mission, while in reality retaining almost exclusive power and
influence over that mission by reserving the role of "motor" and "guarantor
of fidelity" exclusively for the Brothers.
I think the first danger is well illustrated in a talk Brother Vicar gave to the Cilists
this year in which he took the title, "The ministry of the Brother," followed by
an asterisk indicating a footnote in which he stated "in reality we would have to
speak of the ministry of the Lasallian person, Brother, lay man, etc." The
implication that the Brother's ministry is identical to the ministry of any other
Lasallian lay person is liable to lead to unhelpful confusion. There may be many distinct
ministries within our own mission.
I see a danger reflected in the address to the Cilists made by the Brother Secretary for
the Educative Mission, where we read that "together and by association" has two
levels: the Brothers who commit their lives in an exclusive way for the success of the
schools and who make up the Institute, and then our lay collaborators who work with great
dedication but outside the society, because they have been called to live a family
life-style. We are told they have different roles, although these are not defined. But
then comes the assertion that only the Brothers are the "motor" and the
"guarantors of fidelity" to the mission of the Institute (i.e., the exclusive
FSC group just defined), even though we are told it is a shared mission of partners. I
find it difficult to support the claim that we are equal partners in a shared mission if
effectively one of the partners retains exclusive direction and control.
A question is raised here as to what model of Institute and what model of mission are
being used. Whose mission are we speaking of? Are we identifying mission (which is of the
Church) and ministry (which can be many and varied within the same mission)? There is a
tendency to define mission from our position - and we may be doing the same thing with
association. Where is our starting point for association? From within, from the
Institute's position, or from without, from the mission's position?
We are facing here a question of identity. And I do not think that we can grip tightly to
a fixed idea of the FSC identity, while at the same time we wish to ride along with the
development of a broader "association." The adventurous and creative ride on the
back of association might have to be at the expense of looking again at our identity.
Where are the roots of our identity at present? In a canonical status - with our vows - or
in our response to mission? The answer is obviously not a simple either/or, but our answer
will indicate a particular emphasis. And for all the talk of "shared mission"
and "association," there is still a danger that we effectively hold on to a
hierarchical view of our identity, based not upon role or service, but upon status. And
that will not help us to be open or creative for the future.
This tendency to seek status and a ready-made category is perceptible, too, in certain
reactions to the groups of women who wish to form community and be associated with the
Lasallian mission. The danger is to assume them automatically under an umbrella formula,
e.g., the Guadalupanas Sisters, who came to birth at another time and in different
circumstances. Let's hope we can respectfully leave the women themselves to decide what
life-style and status are best suited to their particular needs and interests. We need to
be creative and look at other possible alternatives for each particular group of women
that may present itself.
It is worth remembering that our identity as Brothers of the Christian Schools is
historically rooted in an unorthodox setting - where two specific vows, and not the three
classic vows of religious life, expressed our specific charism. Our vow formula appeared
in our historical process as a result of a vital association within a specified group of
individuals.
We are in evolution, in process. Vatican II insists greatly on this notion of process and
development and on the respect we must therefore have for local, specific realities, for
local developments, for inculturation.
We are not, as Districts, all at the same stage of development. We cannot generalize about
association for the whole Institute. We are at different stages of development. We have to
be as sensitive, adaptable, and creative as was our Founder at the origin of the
Institute.
Rather than wishing to be the "motor" (an analogy that perpetuates the idea that
only the FSCs constitute the real energy for the mission), perhaps we could hope to be the
learner within a much larger mass, happy to see some rather odd shapes and forms develop.
For De La Salle and the early Brothers, association was a strategy in view of mission: a
means of assuring energy and efficiency for that mission. We must be careful not to make
an ideology out of association.
5. A few questions as we look toward the future
Brother Hernando Seba; said to the 1990 Cilists:
The circular model of Lasallian Family is the only valid
model now. We are all equal within that family. When it comes to discussing private FSC
business, lay people have no right to be involved. But when we speak of mission they
should be involved.
The most recent issue of Lasalliana states:
A District or regional plan cannot be drawn up by Brothers
only. The various Lasallian groups must make their specific contribution to it. Seen in
this light, The District plan becomes the District Lasallian Family Plan.
My question is this: are we ready to accept the
consequences of this broadening of "association?" In addition to letting other
lay people share the responsibilities for administration and finance, are we ready to
share with them the advantages and benefits that come with it?
Certain commentaries on "association" would give the impression that we are
ready to accept fuller partnership with other lay people in the realm of the apostolate -
the work - but that the Brothers' community is a private affair for us alone. Are we ready
to accept possible demands made upon us and our life-style by other members of the
Lasallian Family?
The original motivation for "association" in our Institute was the desire to
have a life structure that would facilitate discipleship - it was a strategy for
efficiency in mission. Today, in fidelity to that original motivation for Lasallian
association, would we want to make any changes to our structures, to our life-style?
Are we ready to allow our spirituality to develop and grow in line with a greater openness
to "Lasallians" who are part of a secular culture? Or does "our"
spirituality develop as if these other Lasallians didn't really exist?
Does the rapprochement between the consecrated life and lay secular life offer
possibilities for new forms of living the Gospel values in the service of mission?
Does this new understanding of association offer an opportunity for incarnating our
charism in a new way: new forms of religious life, new styles of grouping together for
mission?
In my present apostolate and mission, whom do I feel myself "associated with" in
reality?
Where do I see scope for developing the bonds of association in my local setting?
What is my gut reaction when I hear of association, shared mission, and Lasallian Family?
Do I understand my reaction?
Is there any link between my reaction and my usual dealings with other lay collaborators?
Are we prepared to take the means to offer the necessary formation - time, finance,
personnel - to those other lay people whom we invite to be associated with us?
Perhaps many of us are still not trusting enough in the other actors involved in our
mission: fellow educators, parents, young people, political groups, and so forth. We may
still be spending paralyzing time and effort discussing who are the poor, or perhaps we
prefer to sacralize the past, the texts, or the Founder. Our language frequently reflects
the language of maintenance: "our patrimony," "our heritage,"
"handing on our works."
Let's listen tot what is happening now: where you live. Where does life seem to spring
from in you local apostolate? Where is the "motor," in fact? Which
"associated" people are contributing the energy to, and ensuring the life of,
our institutions? Which individuals with whom you work bring energy and encouragement to
you? Are they Brothers, Sisters, or other lay men and women?
Let's see where life is springing from and then construct:
forms of association for mission / in community around these realities.
We might have to do what the Founder did: ignore and leave aside past, inefficient modes,
so as to build new structures for mission. This is what I understand association to be: an
efficient, life-giving cooperation for mission. It is central to the whole idea of lay
ministry.
A final word: some of us may see the broadening of association as a threat, because
effectively it is so for the stage which the Institute has reached in our country, or
because of the sense of identity that we at present hold to. For others, association is an
opportunity - to invent, to create, to prepare for a new stage in what we call religious
life.
It is going to be challenging, pioneer territory, but it's out there, armed with our
spirit of faith and zeal, that we will come to a deeper understanding of what association
might became - as yet a "gift half-understood."
ASSOCIATION - AN EVER-PRESENT, EVER-CHANGING REALITY: "A GIFT HALF
UNDERSTOOD"
A few questions for group discussion as we look toward the future:
° Brother Hernando Seba to the 1990 Cilists:
The circular model of Lasallian Family is the only valid model now ... We are all equal
within that family ... When it comes to discussing private FSC business, lay people have
no right to be involved ... But when we speak of mission they should be involved.
° The most recent issue of Lasalliana:
A District of regional plan cannot be drawn up by Brothers only. The various Lasallian
groups must make their specific contribution to it ... Seen in this light, the District
plan becomes the District Lasallian Family plan.
1. Are we ready to accept the consequences of
this broadening of association? In addition to letting other lay people share the
responsibilities for administration and finance, are we ready to share with them the
advantages and benefits?
2. Are we prepared to take the means (time, finances ...) to offer the necessary formation
to those other lay people whom we invite to be associated with us?
3. Certain commentaries on association would give the impression that we are ready to
accept full partnership with other lay people in the realm of the apostolate-work, but
that the Brothers' community is a private affair, for us alone. Are we ready to accept
possible demands made upon us and our life-style by other members of the Lasallian Family?
4. The original motivation for association in our Institute was the desire to have a life
structure that would facilitate discipleship - it was a strategy for efficiency in
mission. Today, in fidelity to that original motivation for Lasallian association, would
we want to make any changes to our structures, to our life-style?
5. Are we ready to allow our spirituality to develop and grow in line with a greater
openness to Lasallians who are part of a secular culture?
6. Does the rapprochement between the consecrated life and lay secular life offer
possibilities for new forms of living the Gospel values in the service of mission?
7. Does this new understanding of association offer an opportunity for incarnating our
charism in a new way?
8. In my present apostolate and mission with whom do I feel myself associated in reality?
9. Where do I see scope for developing the bonds of association in my local setting?
10. What is my gut reaction when I hear of association, shared mission, and Lasallian
Family? Do I understand my reaction?
11. Is there any link between my reaction and my usual dealings with other lay
collaborators? |
