SFO International Council - Weekly edition
Volume: 3 - N. 9 - 1997 - February - IV
From: CIOFS Bulletin, 1996, N. 2
Marianne Powell
The International Interfranciscan Commission for Justice and Peace and the Safeguarding of Nature (abbreviated IFCJP) has held two meetings in 1995, one in Roskilde, Denmark (13-15 March), one in Rome (4-5 November). The first meeting was scheduled to follow immediately after the UN Social Summit, which took place in Copenhagen 6-12 March 1995. This enabled the Commission members to take part with Franciscans International in the NGO Forum, and the Forum was in fact attended by a number of Franciscans besides the Commission members. Personally I had been asked to serve on the official Holy See Delegation at the Summit proper, so as a Franciscan group we experienced the social sumit both at official governmental level and at the level of the NGO's. This resulted in new insights and a fruitful exchange of ideas.
IFCJP and Franciscans International
The most important point on the agenda of the meeting of the Commission after the Summit, however, was a discussion and an evaluation of Franciscans International (FI). We discussed the project, its history and development at great length, and after the meeting sent an 8-page document of observations and recommendations to the Executive Committee of FI. The document, which will be quoted in part below, had full consensus. From the inception of the IFCJP we have been closely involved with FI, both as a Commission and through individual members of IFCJP having served on the FI Executive. Further, the Ministers General and International Presidents of the Franciscan Family, whom we represent in the Commission, in varying degrees have left it to us to dialogue with the FI Executive on the future structure and operation of the organization, preparing for the full participation and acceptance of the project on the part of the Ministers General and International Presidents, now the CFF ( Conference of the Franciscan Family).
IFCJP Observations
Our main focus was the membership model. It is a sad fact that FI membership is still very low, and we reflected as follows:
"-Franciscans in each branch of the family are accustomed to an organic model of association with other Franciscans. That is, we sense a connection with each other simply by virtue of sharing in a common charism. Franciscans at the grassroot level have a difficult time understanding why they must sign up for membership in a project that has the endorsement of Franciscan leadership, that has Franciscans working on it full time, and that bears the name which they already claim in their own identity. They feel connected to many efforts of other Franciscans, even when they have nothing practical or immediate to do with them. The current structure of FI seeks to replace this organic model of association, with which we are already familiar, with a voluntary model, which strikes most as strange and unnecessary.
Secondly, although many Franciscans have an inter-Franciscan sensitivity, the fact is we live our Franciscan lives within the context of a certain canonical jurisdiction...Furthermore, various branches of the Franciscan Family already have networks of communication and common initiatives in place, networks which are often quite efficient and creative. Franciscans,...resist creating an added parallel structure with its own set of meetings and groups when there are already so many claims on increasingly rare time and resources...
Finally, even when individual Franciscans accept theFI model and sign up as members, the question inevitably arises, 'What do I do now?' There are no clear guidelines answering this question, and the result is confusion rather than a focus on a specific mission.
We propose that membership in FI be shifted back to the jurisdictions with which we are already familiar and which already claim our allegiance. Any Franciscan would then be able to say, 'I am a Franciscan, therefore I am part of our NGO associated with the UN.'
We also reflected on the question of accountability:
"-Frequently one hears the questions, 'To whom is FI accountable? For whom does it speak?' The answer is, 'It speaks for and is accountable to its membership', which at last count was 2,528. The question is legitimate, but the answer is inadquate.
The executive committee is not directly accountable to any identifiable Franciscan authority, whether grassroots or hierarchical. In terms of grassroots, the international congress, which was to have taken place in November 1995, was to have elected a board of directors. However, the representative local and regional structures which would send people to this congress simply do not exist.
On the hierarchical level there is lacking a structural connection with existing Franciscan authorities. In the popular perception, when an organization presents itself publically as 'Franciscan', it is presumed to be representative of and speaking for Franciscans as they are already constituted. There are women and men, whether ministers general or international presidents, already responsible for representing Franciscans, but they are structurally disconnected from FI.
Based on the structure agreed to by the international leadership of the Franciscan Family for their own meetings and deliberations, we propose the establishment of a new board of directors for FI composed of: one OFM friar, one Capuchin friar, one Conventual friar, one TOR friar, one Secular Franciscan, and one representative of the IFC-TOR, each appointed by his/her respective Minister General/International President; we also suggest: one Anglican or Lutheran Franciscan appointed by his/her jurisdiction; one Poor Clare (if feasible); one representative of grassroots associations chosen by the other board members.-"
Reactions
Our document was sent to the FI Executive and to the CFF members. The four Ministers General discussed the document at their meeting in Holy Week 1995. On 3rd October 1995 it was discussed by all the six members of the CFF, who communicated to us their approval of it, expressing their hope that the model we had put forward would be followed in a subsequent restructuring of FI.
The FI Executive Committee also discussed our proposal, but came to a different conclusion. They did not want to give up the individual membership, and they did not want membership shifted back to the jurisdictions. Furthermore, members of Franciscan congregations following a TOR rule (and there are several of these on the Executive Committee) do not feel that the International President of the IFC-TOR is comparable to the Ministers General of the friars, nor will they accept that he or she speaks or acts in their name in this context.
Meeting of IFCJP with representatives of the FI Executive Committee
The meeting of the IFCJP in Rome on 4th November 1995 was arranged to coincide with the meeting of the FI Executive Committee, and the two Co-Chairs of the FI, Sr.Bernadette Sullivan SFP and Br.Tom Grady, spent some time with us discussing our differences regarding the future board of the FI.
Regrettably the meeting resolved nothing. There are different issues at stake. There is the understandable pain of the pioneers to let go of their project. There is the fear that some people have when a grassroot movement takes on an institutional type organization (we can recall St.Francis' own words: 'There are too many Friars Minor!'). Some people have a distrust of institutional structures, while others are afraid of what Italians call -"cani sciolti"- (loose dogs not accountable to any one). The question of the TOR congregations is a separate issue. There are about 400 of them, and there is no way in which they can be individually represented on the board.
FI Executive Committee Decision
The FI Executive Committee subsequently reconsidered the IFCJP proposal, adopted by the Ministers General and International Presidents SFO and CFI-TOR, (the CFF), but rejected it largely. The Executive Committee desires a board constituted as follows:
2 members of the CFF (one man and one woman)
7 representatives from different continents
1 member of a Global Interfranciscan Group
2 individuals selected by the new board after the above are
appointed or elected in order to balance the group or to bring some
special expertise.
This board is to be formed at an International Congress to be held in Nairobi, Kenya June 7-13, 1997. Apart from the first category on the list, however, the structures for electing or appointing the rest are not in place, nor indeed the structures for sending people to the Congress.
The Executive Committee made one further change in the organization of the FI, allowing for group membership. This, however, does not solve the problem of accountability, nor indeed are the consequences of group membership as an alternative within the suggested structure fully thought out. As pointed out by Fr.Hermann Schaluck in his answer to the Executive Committee on behalf of the CFF (22nd January 1996): "What would happen if the CFF, speaking in the name of all its members throughout the world, were to apply for group membership in the FI? Would the Franciscan Family then be a substructure of FI?"
This highlights the absurd problem posed by the present structure. "FI", concludes Fr.Hermann, "should act and serve within the constitutional framework provided by that family and its respective branches." This is the only way in which FI "will have a clear mandate within our own Family and within the United Nations."
Crisis
The crisis facing the FI over the question of structure and accountability is all the more sad since in July 1995 our NGO was granted ECOSOC status. There are over 1,700 NGOs affiliated with the UN today, and FI was the 43rd NGO in the history of the UN to attain consultative status Category I with ECOSOC.
The situation is very serious, and the future of the FI is at stake. Two branches of the Franciscan Family have already indicated that if an acceptable solution is not found, they might consider setting up their own NGO at the UN. An acceptable solution to them is one that will make the Franciscan leadership at the highest level accept FI as an official commitment of the individual components of the Franciscan Family. Without this the FI will not have the support it needs, neither moral support, nor support with regard to money and personel. Without the support of the Ministers General and the International Presidents there is a danger that the FI will fold as a joint family project.
For those of us who have been involved with the FI for a number of years and have defended the project against various forms of criticism, the prospect of a break-up is deeply saddening. For the FI to split in separate NGOs would be the worst possible witness we could give the world. I would therefore ask you to consider the issue very carefully and use all your creative imagination to help solve the present crisis, which is threatening the future of this important, worldwide family project.