in      
Reserved Area
BIS National Speak Up (6)

BIS Regional Speak Up

Bangalore (4 items)
Chennai (36 items)
Dimapur (1 items)
Guwahati (32 items)
Hyderabad (12 items)
Kolkata (17 items)
Mumbai (0 items)
New Delhi (27 items)
Tiruchy (8 items)
Colombo (3 items)
Konkan (2 items)
Myanmar (4 items)

BIS Archives

2015 Article
2014 Article
2013 Article
2012 Article
2011 Article
2010 Article
2009 Article
2008 Article
2007 Article
Printable View Print Article   Mail to Friend Mail to Friend   Comment on Article Comment on Article
PARAPPULLY Jose, New Delhi says,
A NOT-SO-WISE MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE POST OF COUNCILLOR FOR THE MISSIONS AT GC 27 - Holding Up to the Light 22
By Jose Parappully
forum
360° VIEW
New Delhi, Apr. 17. Intervention I made at GC 27  on the Judicial Commission`s Proposal to suppress the post of the General Councillor for the Missions.

The proposal of the Judicial commission to suppress the post of the General Councillor for the Missions came as a bolt from the blue.

First, I did not see it mentioned in the document given to the members of the Chapter: ``Evaluating Structures for the Congregation`s Central Government.``

Second, contrary to what was presented by the Jud. Commission, the proposal does not reflect the mind of the General Council as indicated in the above document.

a. In number 3: The General Council was in favour of current composition of the General Council with 15 out of 15 giving a positive vote.

b. In number 4: In regard the  Councillor`s duties the General Council agreed that the tasks currently assigned to the Councillors of sectors adequately respond to the needs of the Congregation today (12 Yes, 3 No.)

c. As reason for the above the General Council observed: ``The missions ad gentes and Social communication are part of the original and fundamental purposes of the Congregation. This is why it is consistent to have specific Councillors on the General Council.``

Third, a good proportion of Provinces that sent in their opinion on the issue are not in favour of the proposal.

According to the data presented by the commission, there were 34 Placet, 23 Non-Placet and 26 Iuxta Modum. Hence the majority (23+26 = 49 out of 92) did not fully endorse the proposal.

Fourth, the reasons given by the Commission for the proposal are not very convincing:

a. If the responsibility for the mission is directly on the Provincials and the Provincial Delegate, it can be said all sectors of the Salesian Mission, and not just the Missions, is the direct responsibility of Provincial and the Delegate. Then, why an exception for the missions?

b. The argument that several aspects of the Missions come under the ambit of the Youth Pastoral can be used in regard to of other sectors as well, including formation.

In that case, formation sector too need to be suppressed.  We can only have Secretariats under the charge of the Rector Major, not only for the Missions, but also for all the current sectors.

c. The argument that several aspects of the formation of the Missionary belongs to the Formation sector, can also be said of the Youth Pastoral sector.

Many aspects of the formation for youth Pastoral, for example, can also be taken care of by the Formation sector. Under this argument given by the Jud. Commission, there is no need for a Councillor for the Youth Pastoral as well.

I think that I have given enough reasons to have this proposal of the Judicial Commission withdrawn and not even put to vote.

Jose Parappully
Delegate, INN

Comments


THARAKAN John India Mumbai
May 03, 2014

I am reading this comment late. But I have a suggestion based on what I read about the happenings at the General Chapter 27 and the functioning of the Juridical Commission. May be all the departments could be wound up and the Juridical commission could take their place - may be that is what they wanted???? I would in fact want the congregation to bring in an accountability clause in the Constitutions and Regulations. And to begin with we could have an analysis of the functioning of the Juridical Commission and make them accountable for their evident lapses and mis-representations. I would also expect a study by the General council and seeking an explanation from the Moderator(s) as to how proposals from confreres are left out so casually by the Preparatory commission and the juridical commission(s)! Could an explanation be sent to provinces and confreres why their suggestions were not taken up!





Post a Comment

More Speak Up in SALESIAN SOCIETY

SIGNS AND BEARERS, NOT WORKERS AND FUNCTIONARIES
NEED FOR HEALING CENTRES: WILL THE CONGREGATION RISE TO THE (RADICAL) CHALLENGE? Holding Up to the Light - 24
A CONDESCENDING PROPOSAL THAT DEMEANS THE BROTHERS AS WELL AS THE SENSIBILITIES OF OTHER SALESIANS. Holding Up to the Light - 23.
A NOT-SO-WISE MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE POST OF COUNCILLOR FOR THE MISSIONS AT GC 27 - Holding Up to the Light 22
THE TIMES, THEY ARE`A CHANGING! BUT VERY .... SLOW........................LY!! Holding Up to the Light 21
Rate this
Current Rating
3.0
Contact via Email
 
Write Your email text message below.
Your email id:
Subject: Comments on 'A NOT-SO-WISE MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE POST OF COUNCILLOR FOR THE MISSIONS AT GC 27 - Holding Up to the Light 22' - Source: BIS South Asia
Comments:
Security Code:
Enter Security Code:  


BIS is the information service of the Salesians of Don Bosco in South Asia.
The information available on the site is posted by the online registered Salesians in the South Asia Region and are approved by their respective Province BIS Coordinators.


This site is best viewed with Mozilla Firefox and/or Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 + at a minimum screen resolution of 1024 x 768


SPEAK UP SEARCH
Search
Province
Classification


RSS Feeds RSS Feeds