1. Government inspired by the spirit of communion

            VC tells us consecrated persons, and especially the Major Superiors,  the way we should proceed in our relations with the Bishops. We will not get into them now⁵¹.

            The IL speaks of the ministry of the Bishop as a service motivated by pastoral charity, exercised by way of a government inspired by the spirit of communion. This is the basic presupposition for a well-articulated pastoral activity. Pastoral charity inspires the essential principles of his ministry: unity, the responsible collaboration and co-ordination. As a Pastor in the midst of his flock and Father in the faith, the priests, the religious and the laity are not merely his “helpers,” but his “collaborators” ⁵². “In fact, the Bishop is to be faithful to his mission, remembering that his personal responsibility as Shepherd is shared by the lay faithful in virtue of their Baptism, by those in sacred orders and by those especially consecrated through the evangelical counsels, each in his own way” ⁵³.

All of this neither obscures nor lessens the authority of the Bishop, who in his particular Church is responsible for the whole of the spiritual, liturgical, catechetical, pastoral and charitable life⁵⁴; it only emphasises the way of exercising it. It is clear that in speaking of participation and collaboration in an ecclesiology of organic communion⁵⁵, it is fitting that at the same time we highlight the difference, the coordination and the complementarity in the personal relations. Since mystery, communion and mission are the three co-ordinates in which the Bishops, priests, consecrated persons and lay persons move, the fact must be taken into account that the dialogue is never between equals and that they do not participate in the same manner nor with identical responsibility in the life and mission of the Church. This character of differentiation in relations not only affects the ministries but also the levels of co-ordination. It is not the same thing to speak or participate or collaborate in one’s own name as it is to do so while representing the institution, whether at the local, national or international level. The characteristics of the dialogue and of the participation-collaboration between Bishops and Major Superiors are very different than those which ordinarily maintain the members of a community of consecrated persons.

If we went to make communion effective and not only affective, adequate channels of collaboration and co-ordination must be established. There are many ways and levels to bring this about, but two dynamics must always be present:  information and dialogue.

            Adequate information makes better knowledge and efficacious co-operation possible⁵⁶. Good information from the Bishops can help the Major Superiors to arouse interest in the projects and problems of the particular Churches, and vice-versa: good information from the Major Superiors helps the Apostolic See and the Pastors know the charism of the Institute and the reason behind the initiatives that they are undertaking; it allows them to know the good or bad period that the Institute or religious province is undergoing and explain the reason for some decisions taken in Chapter or Council that, at times, surprise the universal Church or the particular Churches. Good information allows the harmonisation and joining of the pastoral plans of the Episcopal Conferences and the dioceses and the objectives and priorities of the General and Provincial Chapters as well as of the Conferences of Religious. People tend to say that this is the plan of the bishops, and that is the plan of the religious, emphasising the difference between the two. If there is adequate information and the plans are in agreement, there could be an experience of much greater harmony and co-ordination rather than divergence and parallelism.

            Both the IL and VC put emphasis in tireless dialogue. At this time the name of hope is  dialogue⁵⁷. There is a sense of the need to foster dialogue at all levels of relationship, both personal and institutional. Dialogue, however, the dialogue among is not sufficiently fluid and adequate for several reasons. I will emphasise three: 1) “Efficiency-orientation.” In the Church we have been infected by this virus and we are under pressure to make decisions. We walk over people without caring. Everyone is running about in circles, and there is never enough time. This is an impediment because dialogue takes place in human conditions of serenity, attentive listening and careful discernment. 2) The multiplicity of relations and the complexity of the matters that must all be treated with interest, depth and expertise. 3) Mutual information. Frequently the complaints that we have about the lack of results from dialogue is are not really due to a lack of interest of either side, but that we do not inform each other in time or in a sufficient manner.