|
LASALLIAN EDUCATIONAL MINISTRY
Brother John Johnston, FSC
Opening Remarks
Never in my life have I had a year and a half to prepare a forty-five minute talk! But never in my life have I spent as much time reflecting on the myriad issues associated with LASALLIAN EDUCATION MINISTRY. Preparing these remarks has been a blessing, because it has forced me to clarify my positions and to structure the expression of my thoughts into a forty-five minute format.
Brothers, since this convocation is an assembly of the United States/Toronto Region, this talk should have both U.S. districts and the Toronto District in focus. But the considerable differences between the countries of the United States and Canada render impossible a single point of reference. Maintaining a dual focus, however, is not feasible. The basic point of reference, therefore, will be the United States of America. Nevertheless, I think that most of what I have to say is relevant to the situation of the Institute in the Toronto District today.
A Search of Living Men
The Declaration tells us that it is as living men that we must discover how fidelity to our Lasallian charism can be lived in the present time (Declaration 7). I've asked myself in recent years if we are really judging, deciding, and acting in the United States as living men. I've questioned whether we are really faithful to that dynamic stance which the 39th General Chapter consciously adopted in 1966-1967. Our delegates made courageous decisions at that chapter, as well as at the First U.S. Regional Chapter in 1968 and subsequent District Chapters, decisions that replied to concrete situations demanding clear, unambiguous responses. I think that most of those decisions, perhaps not all, in that time and conditions required them.
Letting Go
I am not particularly concerned now about assessing that past. I am more concerned that we be just as creative, dynamic, and bold today. Sometimes I fear that we are locked in, frozen, paralyzed by decisions of another day. Are we living too much on past investments? Investments made not only fifty years ago, but also fifteen years ago? Permeating these remarks this morning will be a plea for openness, detachment, for a spirit of "letting go" not only of that Institute of 1960 which no longer exists, but also of that Institute of 1970 which no longer exists, an Institute the story of which is ancient history to the young men in this gathering today.
Toward a Common Understanding
But that remark should not lead you to expect anything remarkably creative and revolutionary today. On the contrary, I think that the elements for a creative revitalization of Lasallian Educational Ministry are known to all of us. But to make better sense out of these elements, we need a less nebulous and more functional model of Lasallian Education Ministry. Under the umbrella of such a model, we can find the order and direction for which we crave; without it we have confusion, frustration, demoralization, and polarization. We have to have a common understanding of "who we are and what God expects us to do" (Fiddler on the Roof), a common understanding which we consciously embrace and to which we commit ourselves in association.
A Recognizable Ministry
The topic assigned me — Lasallian Educational Ministry — implies that there is in fact such a recognizable ministry. I believe that there is — or at least there should be and can be. As a catalyst in our search for what that something is, I'll present some responses to four questions: Lasallian Educational Ministry: By Whom? What? For Whom? How? The questions are closely interrelated, so much so that I find it impossible to begin where I would prefer to begin: with the For whom? I must begin with By Whom?
LASALLIAN EDUCATIONAL MINISTRY: BY WHOM?
Part I
Central to an effective and functional model of Lasallian Educational Ministry is a common understanding of the By whom? is this ministry to be exercised? When we operate out of fundamentally different image of what a Brother is, our presuppositions and mutual expectation become so diverse and communication so painful that we are inclined to avoid conflict and opt instead for a spirit of "amicable toleration" — the equivalent to a commitment to the status quo. Certainly a healthy diversity in living the Lasallian vocation is a rich blessing. But if we are to achieve any significant degree of unity in this diversity, we must have a common understanding of who the Brother is and what he is all about.
DLS's Image of the FSC
De la Salle's understanding is clear. God in His Providence, that is to say, in His love and concern for poor and neglected youngsters, kindles a light in the hearts of certain person, calling them to respond in association to these needs. The Brother is such a man, called to be minister, ambassador, co-worker with Christ. The Brother is a man of God, totally consecrated, a man whose life is centered on Jesus Christ; a man committed to the following of Christ in freely chosen celibacy, poverty, obedience, and service of the poor through education; a man vowed to this commitment all his lifetime, trusting that God will be faithful. He is a faith-filled and prayerful man, a community man, a zealous man.
DLS's imagery is apostolic. In the sixteen meditations he prepared for the Brothers to use during the important time of the annual retreat, he speaks of zeal an astounding forty-six times. He consistently refers to the young as "those God has confided to your care."
An Apostolic Model
This apostolic model of consecrated life, for a long time ignored because it did not readily fit into 19th and 20th century theologies of consecrated life, was vigorously embraced by the 39th General Chapter.
That this General Chapter option for an apostolic model of a consecrated life was a repudiation of the "monk-who-also-teaches" model with two separate ends, one primary, the other secondary, is well known. But we cannot presume that Brothers are now operating out of this General Chapter apostolic model. Many of us, I suspect, are consciously or unconsciously living out of models which are not Lasallian. One such model suggests a new form of dualism: personal growth through the living of the three traditional vows and spiritual exercises as the primary end; and the service of others as a separate and secondary end. Another places its primary focus on the living of community life or on witnessing to fraternal love, with the service of others a separate and secondary end. Later we'll talk about models of association that cannot be reconciled with the Lasallian model of association. There is no question here of right model and wrong model. It is a question of which model we, through our General Chapters, have embraced.
Apostles, Not Just Teachers
But there is a second consideration concerning our image that is equally important. We are called to be apostles in virtue of our religious consecration, not just teachers. We are to be excellent teachers, yes, but more than that. We are to be loving men, concerned for young people, yes, but more than that. We are to be evangelizers. We are called to be zealous men. Zeal is of the essence of our vocation. And let us not confuse zeal with professionalism. We must, of course, be professionals, but zeal is more. Zeal involves an ardent desire to help young people grow in the spirit of Christianity.
Brothers in Association
So far, Brothers, our focus has been the image of the FSC as an individual. Let's adjust that focus: the first Brothers experienced themselves called to live their consecration in association with men united by a conscious sharing of the same ideal, expressed in and through a strikingly original manner of living the Gospel. They vowed association for the purpose of teaching the poor gratuitously. This vow of association was in a sense a vow of identity: it answered the question: who were these men living this new life style?
This association had teeth in it. The men committed themselves to one another for the service of the poor. They vowed obedience to the group and to its representatives. They promised to go wherever they were sent and to do whatever they were assigned. They vowed stability, even if obliged to beg alms and live on bread alone.
To Live in Society with...
Association is a precious tradition among us. We live it on the international, regional, district, and community levels. We hold that it is a constitutive element of our vocation. Our commitment to association has no less teeth than that of our early Brothers. We also have committed ourselves to one another: "to live in society with." We have promised to go wherever we may be sent and to do whatever we may be assigned by the body of the Institute or by its superiors.
Perhaps what I have just said sounds naive. But it is in fact the way we describe ourselves every time we renew our consecration. There have been changes in our process of assigning and being assigned, but the bottom line is still the same: availability: "Here I am, Lord, send me."
In the last twenty years, we have become increasingly aware of our responsibility to participate more actively and directly in determining how our gifts and talents should be used in the service of others. Institutional needs have gradually yielded to the personal needs of the Brothers as priority criteria. Inevitably, tensions have developed around district commitments and personal preference.
Nevertheless, there are considerable differences in assignment policies with the Region. A number of districts have worked creatively and with success to reconcile district commitments and personal preference. Some others, in practice if not in theory, grant individual choice. In some districts, Brothers are challenged to consider specific needs before they choose their apostolate; in other districts this practice is less common. A considerable number of Brothers choose to stay where they are. A smaller number choose new apostolates, in existing schools or outside them. The tendency is for districts to become a composite of the individual choices of the Brothers. The possibility of corporate planning is quite limited. It seems clear we are operating out of different models of association. We lack a common understanding of the commitment to working "together and by association."
Availability
Our Institute model — go wherever we are sent; do whatever we are asked — is not the only feasible model for religious institutes. But it is the one we have freely chosen as an international body. It is the model to which all of us committed ourselves. In essence it means that we agree to work together and by association, in a structured and coordinated manner, a district plan which we make our own. Certainly we have the right and even the duty to make known our interests, preferences, and judgment relative to our suitability for specific tasks. Certainly also we can and should bring initiatives for new possibilities to the Visitor and District Council. What matters is that we are available, available to be challenged and to consider seriously the needs of the district and even the Institute internationally. The bottom line is that the Visitor has the last word, which is more than a formalistic rubber stamp. That power the Institute gives the Visitor is a responsibility demanding sensitivity, concern, and utmost respect for the human person, a responsibility for the exercise of which the Visitor is strictly accountable.
Association — that commitment freely made to one another for the sake of the mission — must be built on mutual trust and self-sacrifice. An association of loving persons freely committed to the same ideal is a group with power — legitimate power at the service of the Lord and of the Church; a power to do really worthwhile and significant things.
Part II
For some three hundred years the Brothers have received, lived, and passed on the Lasallian ideal, aided for a number of these years by men and women collaborators in an important but secondary role.
A Changing Model
This traditional model of the FSC-lay collaboration has virtually collapsed everywhere. It neither can nor should continue to exist. It is not merely a question of diminished number of Brothers. It is more the call to full apostolic participation of all Christians, and the willingness of so many well-informed, highly motivated men and women to respond positively to the challenge.
As the percentage of lay teachers in U.S. Catholic schools has increased (from 8% in 1944 to 74% in 1982), we have progressively shared positions of responsibilities. Yet at the same time, many of us felt frustrated, perhaps demoralized, that Brothers' schools, as we once knew them, were things of the past.
But lay teachers as well as Brothers have wrestled with the implications of this dramatic change. Many dedicated lay teachers in the FSC world are expressing the desire to participate not only in positions of authority in the school, but also in the Lasallian spirit and FSC tradition. The 40th General Chapter studied this development, calling it the Lasallian Family Movement, and strongly encouraged it. What has happened in recent years is nothing short of remarkable. Numerous districts of the Institute have organized frequent and effective workshops and retreats for lay collaborators in Lasallian spirituality and ministry. The response has surpassed all expectations. There is a high degree of desire and readiness for identification with the Lasallian tradition. US/Toronto participants in the Mexico World Congress were amazed to hear teachers, parents, young people speak of "our Founder and of the Spirit of Faith and Zeal in association.
The older model of FSC-lay collaboration — a triangular model, if you will, is yielding to a circular model. On points of this circle are the Brothers, the administrators, teachers, staff members, parents, former students, board members, friends, benefactors, students themselves.
A New FSC Role
In this circular model of Lasallian Educational Ministry, the FSC have a crucial role to play, but a different role from the past. This role is to animate, that is, to give spirit, support, vigor, and zest, to move to action, to encourage. We exercise this role of animation not only as individuals, but as communities. Determining precisely how is an essential moment in the process of formulating the Community Annual Program. Our communities ought to be "impact centers," giving spirit to the Lasallian Family, sharing, as the trained Lasallian disciples we should be, the richness of our heritage. We claim no special holiness or academic or professional superiority in virtue of our life-styles; but we do claim this particular role of animation in Lasallian spirituality and Lasallian Educational Ministry.
Brothers, I know that what I'm describing is feasible only in FSC schools. But when we work in collaboration with other religious institutes or in other non-FSC schools or non-school apostolates, we can still represent personally and communally the values that constitute Lasallian education.
By Whom? The Lasallian Family
I want to insist that nothing I have said indicates in any way a "watering down" of the FSC vocation. We must avoid all ambiguity and lack of clarity with regard to FSC identity. The Brothers, on point of the Lasallian circle, have a distinct identity as consecrated men. Nevertheless, the answer to the question By whom? is not: Brothers of the Christian School with lay collaborators. The answer is rather: the Lasallian Family, animated by the Brothers of the Christian Schools.
LASALLIAN EDUCATIONAL MINISTRY: WHAT?
"The end of the Institute is to give a Christian education to children." (Rule of 1705) General Chapters throughout history, including the last two General Chapters, have strongly reaffirmed this orientation.
Elements of Lasallian Education
The topic assigned me — Lasallian Educational Ministry — prompts us to ask whether there is in fact a specificity to Christian Education that can legitimately be called Lasallian. I think there are clearly discernible elements in our tradition that make it possible for us to speak of a Lasallian expression of Christian education: attention to persons, special concern for the economically poor and for all "down and outers"; commitment to excellence; creative and adapted education; dynamic religious instruction and pastoral service; promotion of justice and peace; faith-filled and zealous teachers in association.
The composite of these elements give us a picture of the WHAT of Lasallian Educational Ministry. I'm not concerned whether other religious institutes have an understanding of their mission that is similar. We do not define ourselves in terms of who we are not, but in terms of who we are and what we are all about.
In this understanding we want to share with other members of the Lasallian Family. For the next few minutes, however, I am going to focus specifically on our own relationship to Lasallian Educational Ministry.
The Ministry of Christian Education
"It is true to say that the Brother exercises an apostolate whenever he truly educates." (Declaration 41) The Institute has always given the central place in this Christian education to religious education. But it has never dissociated the teaching of religion from the rest of education, or devoted itself to religion alone. There has always been the concern to link the work of evangelization with growth in education and culture. (Declaration 40)
We are ministers who are educators; we are educators who are ministers. Our vocation requires that we be well-trained, professionally and academically, that we be life-time students. It demands also that we be prepared sufficiently in theology or religious education to be instructors of religion, as well as pastoral animators. While the teaching of religion will not always be feasible, it should be considered normal activity for the Brother. We cannot accept lack of adequate preparation as an excuse for not teaching religion. We have to remedy the lack. And there is no country in the world where continuing education in religious education or theology is so readily available.
Ministers to Youth
But more than teaching of religion is required for our mission. We are called to be youth ministers, experts on youth, specialists in helping the young grow in the life of faith. Whether we are teaching religion or not, we can be actively involved, part-time or out-of-school, in leading youth groups of prayer and Christian service, in helping with youth retreats, in counseling and spiritual direction of young people.
In some countries today there are full-time district-level administrators charged with the promotion, animation, and coordination of pastoral ministry in the schools of the district. The overwhelmingly positive response of young people to these movements is a clear indication that they are looking to us, Brothers of the Christian Schools, for help in growing as Christians.
But I repeat, Brothers, that Christian education is our ministry; the pastoral animation of the young is one dimension of that ministry. To reduce the mission of the Brothers, as some are inclined to do, to pastoral service is to opt for an apostolic scope far too narrow to be in any sense healthy.
LASALLIAN EDUCATIONAL MINISTRY: FOR WHOM?
"Our consecration constitutes us messengers to the young to declare the truth that sets them free." ( Rule, chp. 9) "Messengers to the young." While our service is not limited to the young, they are our principal focus. God has confided them to our care.
By vocation we are leaders of youth; guides for parents and others working with youth. We have to know young people, how they think, what their hopes, aspirations, problems are. We have to know how to reach them.
The youth we are called to serve by preference are youth who are poor. Our Rule is unambiguous that we are directed by preference to the poor. (Rule, chp. 1) The 40th General Chapter insisted that orientation towards the direct service of the poor become the rule rather than the exception in district priorities, and that when we are not teaching the poor directly, we must be effectively educating our students to a commitment to justice and peace.
Solidarity with the Poor
Whatever their particular commitment, says the Declaration, the Brothers want to be in solidarity with the poor. (Declaration, 32, literal translation) Solidarity with the poor is a good umbrella expression: the Brother is a Christian educator in solidarity with the poor. This solidarity commits us,
1. To "see" the poverty that exists, at home and abroad; to seek to understand the underlying issues.
2. To "feel" poverty and the effects of poverty — which implies exposure to and familiarity with the world of the poor.
3. To know the social teachings of the Church.
4. To be sensitive to our own attitudes, feelings, prejudices; and be disposed to confront them and, when necessary, to change.
5. To live as persons of ordinary means or modest condition (Rule, chp. 6) — otherwise we become too "at home" in the upper middle class environment; as De la Salle says, we'll "acquire rich tastes and will no longer be able to refrain from applauding the language of the rich, however, pernicious it may be." (Last Will and Testament)
6. To take stands, to be willing to get involved, to put ourselves on the line, giving evidence that we are men in solidarity with the poor, people who really care.
7. To educate for commitment to justice and peace — I have the impression that we have made significant progress in this area in the United States. Since we must help our young people "see" the poor and learn the social orientation of the Church as well as give them the opportunity to serve, it is encouraging to know that such programs are enjoying high priority in our schools.
8. To serve the poor directly through education, at home and abroad. The 40th General Chapter challenged each of us "to volunteer for this educational service of the poor wherever the most urgent needs present themselves." (Proposition 13) A significant number of Brothers have said yes to this challenge — the list includes Brothers of all ages, including Brothers legally retired from teaching. If we do not see such service as feasible for us, we should, nevertheless, support the district in placing "no obstacle, even under the plea of maintaining existing works, to Brothers who volunteer for this educational service." (Proposition 13)
The Question of Needs
This orientation by preference for the education of the poor does not represent an option for one specific social class and the rejection of another. Nor does it imply that those who are not poor have no legitimate needs. It does mean, however, that we resist the temptation of labeling anyone with needs — namely everyone — as poor, thus stripping the word of all meaning. Thank God our First U.S. Regional Chapter declared unambiguously: "By the word poor, we mean the economically poor." (Acts, p. 42) This no-nonsense stance does not, however, conflict with our grand tradition of reaching out to all "down and outers" — youngsters with behavior problems, the handicapped, the retarded, the emotionally disturbed, the intellectually slow, etc.
It is in this context that we must understand the expression: "serving those most in need." These are in the first place the economically poor people whose needs are not being met, either at all or satisfactorily, by government, Church, or anybody else. The Second U.S. Regional Chapter had these same people in mind: "In this region, the economically dependent, the unproductive, and victims of any kind offer the Brothers the greatest opportunity for service. These poor are excluded from a fair share of society's benefits, in spite of their desires and efforts; they lack many opportunities necessary to make their lives more fully human." (Acts, pp. 47-48)
The Hispanic Presence
Such economically dependent are many and I hesitate to specify any one group. Nevertheless, I want to call attention to the Hispanic population. The publication last December of U.S. Bishops' Pastoral The Hispanic Presence: Challenge and Commitment, together with the debate generated by the proposed new legislation, has made all of us more aware than ever of the needs of immigrants in the United States. In the last century Catholic schools responded creatively and admirably to the needs of Catholic immigrants. Today, according to the Bishops, Catholic educators must turn their skill to meeting the educational needs of Hispanics.
I know that we have many Hispanics in our schools and that we are making every effort to reply to their plea for help, even by the creation of new works. I want to affirm what is being done and at the same time urge the districts to commit even more men to this service. The need of elementary education of young Hispanics is keen. Many high school age students need remedial help. Adult Hispanics need to learn English. Can our high schools and colleges do even more through special evening and weekend programs?
My specifying the Hispanics and other immigrants and refugees is certainly not intended in any way to minimize our very necessary service of poor U.S. citizens. But it is to recall that we must always be sensitive to new needs, as well as to the perennial needs that never cease to challenge us.
Serving the Poor, Where They Are
Several times, Brothers, I have used the phrase "service of the poor, at home and abroad." And the poor of the world are, proportionately, abroad. Today there are approximately sixty-six U.S. Brothers serving very significantly in a number of foreign countries. That is approximately 4.4% of our personnel. I think the percentage should be higher. Brothers from the U.S. are urgently needed to live, serve with, and support local Brothers not yet sufficiently numerous or not yet adequately trained to take responsibility for their apostolic projects; to maintain existing commitments where there are few or no local Brothers; to promote local vocations and to assist in programs of initial and continuing formation, to respond to special needs and to make new foundations in reply to the urgent requests that Superior General receives regularly.
Most of the poor areas of the world can provide educational opportunities for only a fraction of the school-age population. The needs, therefore, are urgent and demand our serious consideration. That the U.S./Toronto Region is presently reviewing its missionary commitment is good news. It is, of course, essential that this review take place in close communication with the Superior and the General Council, who are charged with the responsibility of coordinating our Institute missionary endeavors.
LASALLIAN EDUCATIONAL MINISTRY: HOW?
"The end of the Institute," says the Rule of 1705, "is to give a Christian education to children, and it is for this purpose that the Brothers keep schools." The end: Christian education of children; the means: the school. The school for De la Salle was the principal and ordinary means, linked intrinsically to the finality of the Institute. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish end from means.
It is equally important to be precise concerning the school that De la Salle chose as the ordinary means. It was not just any school. It was the Christian gratuitous school, the school which embodied the values we spoke of earlier, the school which was free of charge and therefore available to the poor for whom it was primarily intended.
The Christian School, Available to All
The General Chapters have reaffirmed the Christian-School-Available-to-All as the "foremost apostolic work of the Brothers" (Declaration, 44) and as the "privileged instrument" for educating the poor. (Rule, chp. 1) Obviously, to be such a privileged instrument, the school must be creatively adapted to the needs of the poor and realistically available to them. Brothers sometimes erroneously interpret exhortations to give higher priority to service of the poor as exhortations to choose non-school apostolates. That is to mix apples and oranges. Matters concerning the FOR WHOM and matters concerning the HOW, while related, are distinct.
An Extraordinary History
Brothers, the history of Catholic schools in the United States is a clear manifestation of the faith and commitment of our Catholic population. We can and should be legitimately proud of our central role in this development, a development indicating that we were "inculturated" and "inserted" actively in the local Church long before these expressions became fashionable.
The Institute grew in the United States not in response to the needs of the poor class in a Catholic population, but rather in response to the needs of a Catholic minority in a population heavily Protestant and, in varying degrees, suspicious of and even hostile towards the increasing Catholic population. Catholic schools made possible for the children of minority Catholics, many of them poor, a Catholic education which helped them to preserve their faith and to compete competently in United States society. The focus was the Catholic minority, regardless of social or economic status, and not the poor segment of a Catholic population. The financial sacrifice for Catholic education that even low-income Catholic parents, as well as young people themselves, have made and continue to make today is one of the most striking characteristics of the United States Catholic Church. In like manner, the effort that Brothers have made and continue to make to keep tuition as low as possible through their contributed services, careful economizing, and creative fund-raising testifies to the desire of the Brothers to make their schools available to as many young people as possible.
Continuing Mission of Catholic Schools
As the Catholic minority has gradually moved up the economic ladder, we have accompanied them, building new schools in new neighborhoods and providing FSC communities. Catholic schools continue to play an important part in the mission of the United States Church, even though the majority of Catholic families, for financial or other reasons, choose not to avail themselves of their services.
Other Possibilities
While the Christian school, ideally gratuitous, is the "privileged instrument of our apostolate," the Institute, says Chapter 1 of the Rule, "is open to other possibilities for teaching and education adapted to the circumstances and need of the time."
Of the 1005 United States Brothers directly engaged in the apostolate, 89% are in FSC schools; 11% are in apostolates apart from FSC schools. (1983 statistics).
Guidelines governing the "work of the Brothers in schools not directed by them and in educational activities apart from schools" are provided in the Declaration (50-52), as well as in Propositions 11, 12, and 62 of the Second Regional Chapter. The essential is that the educational activity be carefully studied, approved by the Visitor and Council, and become an integral, not marginal, part of the District Mission Plan, as well as the plan of a specific local community: "Those engaged in such apostolates do this work as members of a community and with the consent of their superior. They represent the Institute; it is important that they think of themselves in this way and be accepted and supported in their work by the other Brothers." And section 652 of the Declaration says: "Sometimes, especially where positions of leadership are concerned, Brothers will, of necessity or at least for understandable reasons, not be associated with other Brothers in their daily work. But our Institute preference is that Brothers work together and by association. This preference is not motivated by a blind obedience to a past tradition, but by a conviction that an FSC community working together and by association is a potent instrument for good.
Our Challenge Today
Brothers, as we reflect on our history in the United States, we cannot help but be impressed. What has been accomplished is a tribute to the vision, the faith, the zeal, and the courage of the Brothers who lived before us. We have to be just as wise, faith-filled, zealous, courageous, and creative today as we try to find our way in a country where Catholic descendants of the first settlers and immigrants "have arrived" (John Tracy Ellis), where a well-educated and zealous laity are assuming more and more responsibility for Catholic education, where new ministries are being created, where the role of men and women in religious institutes is changing, where the number of Brothers has diminished, where the cost of Catholic schools is a formidable and often insurmountable obstacle for low-income families, where many United States citizens live below the poverty line, where immigrants and refugees arrive regularly, with or without documentation, where a Church come-of-age grapples with its responsibility to "let go" of its provincialism and to think and act internationally, sharing its human and material resources.
Men of 1984
In short, this is 1984. As "living men" — men of 1984 -- we must discover how fidelity to our Lasallian charism can best be lived today. It is not surprising that there is a tendency to pull the curtains down, to withdraw into the familiar, to try to reinforce what we have, to retreat in order to survive. There is a predictable and understandable reaction to calls for new ventures in response to new needs: "We must be realistic...Where are these Brothers to come from?...Our numbers are declining...We have too many commitments already...
And yet, the Church continues to challenge us to think otherwise. "Institutes dedicated to the active life should sincerely ask themselves in the presence of God whether they cannot broaden their activity in favor of expanding God's kingdom among the nations; whether they might not leave certain ministries to others so that they themselves can spend their energies on the missions." (Ad Gentes, 40; Declaration, 24) And, I can add, on other critical needs.
Distribution of Personnel
After the General Council visit to the United States in 1978, we recommended a deliberate policy of reducing the number of Brothers in some institutions and of withdrawing the Brothers from some others, in order to make more Brothers available for urgent needs, particularly of the poor, at home and abroad. This same orientation is at the heart of Circular 412. These recommendations reveal our confidence that Catholic men and women can assume more responsibility for Catholic schools today.
Both steps, of course, require careful preparation. No school should ever have to close because of our decision. Such moves in no way reflect negatively on what we have done or what we are now doing. The problem is not at all what we are doing; it is rather what we are not doing. There are so many young people deprived of Christian educators. Members of religious institutes are best able to respond, having the freedom, the supports, the structures that make a response feasible.
Turning over an institution to others and withdrawing Brothers, for whatever reason, is always painful for the Brothers, and is inevitably accompanied by protests from the local people. But we have to be disposed to suffer the hurt and to subordinate our own feelings to the mission of the Church.
The Real World
Where does all this leave us? Brothers, we do have to be realistic. We do have to be sensitive to the desires and needs of the Brothers themselves. We do have to be serious about commitments made in the past. I am not advocating any kind of recklessness. But I am pleading for a frontal attack on the "holding pattern" and "survivor" mentality. I am advocating corporate evaluation, decisions, and action. Permit me to communicate some strictly personal views on the distribution of personnel:
1. I would favor designating a number of our FSC schools in each district, at home and abroad, as schools the Brothers would administer with a number of Brothers sufficient to be a significant animating influence in the Lasallian Family. Please note that I am not talking about the former FSC-lay triangular model of collaboration, but the circular model of Lasallian Family; I am not talking about "Brothers' schools" but "Lasallian schools."
Such schools — first-class Christian schools embodying the values of Lasallian education — can be examples of what Christian education is all about. Furthermore, the availability of such schools is necessary for the many Brothers who want to work in schools that are explicitly Lasallian and administered by the Brothers themselves. Maintaining a number of excellent Lasallian schools, therefore, contributes to the mission of the Church and at the same time responds to the interests, talents, and aspirations of a number of Brothers.
2. I would favor maintaining a strong commitment to the institutions we presently have for the service of the poor, of immigrants, of youngsters with behavior problems, etc. This commitment implies a willingness to provide the specialized training that Brothers in such institutions need.
3. I would favor giving high priority to our colleges in the United States. I am convinced that Catholic higher education is an important element in the mission of the U.S. Church and that many Brothers have a gift for contributing on this level. At the same time, we must participate actively in the continuing search for the meaning of the Catholic college and university and commit ourselves to strengthening the identity and character of our institutions as Catholic. Furthermore, I believe the Brothers in the U.S. can help the Institute articulate the relationship of the FSC to higher education, an articulation that has not yet been done on the Institute level.
4. I would favor district commitments of FSC communities to collaborative efforts of long and short duration, at home and abroad, with dioceses, parishes, lay groups, or other religious institutes, in schools and other educational projects, giving priority to needs of the poor or disadvantaged or to the need for Catholic education in remote areas. We already have a number of such commitments. Others could be created. Some could be joint ventures of two or more districts.
5. I would favor a deliberate policy of making Brothers available:
a. for positions of leadership in education: for example, in administration, religious education, youth ministry, justice and peace, adult education, particularly on the diocesan level;
b. for special needs in Lasallian projects at home and abroad, particularly when help is requested by the Superior General and General Council or by other districts.
The Price to Pay
Obviously, Brothers, the fourth and fifth possibilities cannot become realities if we are paralyzed by present commitments. That is why I suggest that while we renew and strengthen a number of our commitments, we reduce the number of Brothers or withdraw them completely from some others in order to make possible other ventures at home and abroad. Such moves would have to be preceded by careful planning, but planning that terminates in decision and action within a reasonable period of time.
Presentation by
Brother John Johnston, FSC
Regional Convocation, August 1984
Saint Mary's College
Moraga, California
|
