Lay-Religious

1. Regarding the first of these:  promoting the development of the entire Congregation

It’s clear that we cannot just talk about Assumptionist religious; we have to talk about religious and lay members of the Congregation.  We can’t just talk about collaboration (lay people helping out, working with the ones who are running the show).  And here I am not simply talking about structures or power.  I’m talking about shared vocation, about lay men and women who, through their experience or contact with the religious and in their work, sense an affinity with the spirit of the Assumption that is so important to them that they begin to think of it as a special grace, even as a vocation.  We religious cannot ignore that personal call. (…)

2. Regarding the second of these:  I am enthusiastic about this group because of how you are going about this task, viz. at an international level and in a structured manner.

2.1. You are going about your work at an international level:

I understand the importance of respecting the Provincial and national levels, but there is such a thing as insisting on this too much.  We cannot leave this up to local sensitivities or cultures, which may or may not be open to the idea. Those cultures, regions, Provinces who are not convinced need to be persuaded by the rest of the Congregation.  Those cultures, regions with more experience need to help the rest of us.

Consequently, this international level is indispensable.  Internationality is something to be valued.  It has to do with nothing less than peace and harmony among nations, churches, and cultures.  We need to be concerned with it, because we need to humanize the inevitable movement in the world to globalization. (…)

2.2. You are going about your work in an international context, but also in the context of a well-defined structure.

 I believe in the importance of structures, even if we insist that they must be light and life-giving.  This is the way of our human (bodily) nature.  We need government, and we need “commissions” to “carry” certain values, to insure that they are respected and have the ongoing impact that they deserve. (…)

Concretely, my expectations for your work are straightforward.  I hope:

-we can begin to produce formation tools for lay people without delay;

-we can find ways of insuring regular, ongoing communication not just among lay people, but of lay people and religious;

-we can find ways of encouraging international contact/visits/collaborations.

You will say that formation tools must be adapted to local, cultural sensitivities; that communication will be so difficult because of cultural, but also linguistic impediments; that international contact/visits/collaborations are so complicated and so costly

And you are right.  But we can’t lose sight of the fact that Assumption is a reality that belongs to at least 27 different cultures.  Whatever meaning it has locally, in one’s own culture, must have its source in that common reality, and must return to that source frequently lest it be changed into something other than the Assumption.  

And more importantly, it is a matter of breadth of vision.  Either we choose to limit ourselves to our own local, cultural sensitivities, or we open ourselves to the world that d’Alzon envisioned:

“To have narrow, simply personal, and petty thoughts in the face of such a great undertaking, I consider that abominable…, find a better word if you can.  What’s more, if you consider…the idea of making a fourth vow to extend the reign of Jesus Christ in souls…, then you understand why we need to have a heart as broad as the Church, that immense ocean in which God has poured all of his treasures.”  (ES 665, talk to the Religious sisters of the Assumption, 1870).

If this kind of vision is important to us, then we will find the ways.

Richard E. Lamoureux, a.a., Superior General

9 September 2006