3. Other aspects of government that require special co-ordination

a) Care for persons. This is the first point that requires co-ordination so that they may live with creative fidelity to their vocation and contribute to the particular Churches the richness of the charism of their own Institute. Although it is true that, since they came into being for the good of the Church and of society, the Institutes must be flexible and adapt their works and services, it is also certain that they cannot move away from the original inspiration original of the founders in order to resolve occasional needs. In being destined for a particular Church consecrated persons, especially those who occupy special positions with pastoral responsibility (parish priests, directors of educational institutions, of services in MCS, etc.) and religious superiors should be willing to share information about their qualities or limitations. This is the only way that the Bishops can welcome them paternally. Co-ordination is even more necessary when discerning personal situations of vocational crisis, e.g., when thinking about moving from the consecrated life to the secular clergy, or in cases of the temporary admission of religious priests in the diocese, separating them from community living.

CICLSAL asked the religious Superiors to have special care for the fraternal life in community; it wants to re-evaluate community life. Accepting by way of exception cases in which religious live alone for serious reason or to offer special missionary service, it emphasises that the “solo” religious is never an ideal. Life and apostolate should normally be in community⁵⁹.

b) The realisation of pastoral programmes, at the national, regional or local level. I believe it would be more effective if in our planning we would keep the individual religious more in mind “institutionally,” and not only in regard to his or her own person, or office. When a person is involved in choosing priorities, goals and means, there is greater involvement. The co-ordination of Catholic publications, many of them in the hands of the Institutes of consecrated life, continues to be a hope and the concentration of efforts in the evangelisation of culture still remains an ideal. Why is there so much resistance to having participation of religious and laity in the elaboration of pastoral plans?

c) Statements, written works, interventions and other acts that may be in opposition with the guidelines given by the Pastors. At times one is led to believe that these situations would not exist if if the Bishops and Major Superiors would take more responsibility in the exercise of their authority. Please allow me to reflect briefly on this point.

The truth is that today the consecrated life suffers more from a lack of responsibility in the exercise of authority than from authoritarianism, as happened in other times⁶⁰. It is not so much the cases of formal disobedience that give cause for concern, as is the individualism that causes people to live and act independently. This individualism, which frequently presents itself as an erroneous affirmation of personal values, erodes anyone’s ability to exercise authority, because “strongly affected by individualism, it is not an easy thing to foster recognition and acceptance of the role which authority plays for the benefit of all.” ⁶¹. This statement is valid not only for religious life but also throughout the whole Church. That is not to say that either side can escape responsibility in the exercise of authority, which is not only a service of inspiration, discernment and planning, but also of decision-making. However, it helps us to see the crucial point that necessitates co-ordination between the Bishops and Major Superiors. Therefore, it is a question of using all means to seek and foster life in communion and uproot any type of subjectivism. In cases in which doctrinal or pastoral problems are impacting on the life of the Church, commissions could be established for discernment, to help the individuals and to support the decisions. When resolving cases of conflict over doctrinal questions or pastoral activity, a division of viewpoints, criteria and attitudes between the Bishops and the Major Superiors creates a serious obstacle. For example, it is not good for a Bishop or a Major Superior to make a decision about a personal situation and other Bishops or Major Superiors are encouraging or defending the person involved without knowing what has gone before.

            In any case, there is an urgent need for more fruitful dialogue between Bishops and theologians, based upon adult communication in faith. ⁶² In dialogue suspicions about conflictive points are removed, which, many times are no more that problems of language, and there is more clarity about the responsibility of service that one and the other have in the Church’s mission of evangelisation.