Background:
The Life Professed Companions voted to require annual attendance at General Assembly. As we continue to strengthen our community’s commitment to General Assembly, we will blog to gather ideas, suggestions, and feedback on draft language regarding absence from General Assembly. Below is proposed language outlining the conditions under which excused absences may be granted and the process following repeated absences, based on what Brother Andrew Aelred wrote in an earlier blog. This is posted as a potential starting point only! We can edit it or do a major rewrite — we just need a place to start and Bro. Andrew Aelred gave us one. Remember this language will be in Precepts, the part of the Founding Document which is focused on structure and governance, and is a bit more legalistic in tone than the Principles section.
Rationale of Sanctions:
Sanctions are essential for upholding accountability and preserving the integrity of established commitments and obligations. Without them, we lack the means to effectively address repeated instances of non-attendance at General Assembly, an issue that has historically undermined our collective responsibility.
Proposed New Language to be added to Precepts XIII, Regarding General Assembly:
Attendance at General Assembly is required every year for Companions and those in the Foundation Program.
The Servant Guardian may grant an excused absence from General Assembly for (one ?) / (two ?) occurrences within a two-year period, but only for valid reasons such as health, work obligations, being out of the country, or family crisis. Companions are required to allocate adequate time to engage in direct communication with the Servant Guardian to discuss their attendance in the event of unavoidable circumstances. Merely providing notification of their absence from General Assembly shall not constitute an excused absence.
.A Companion’s profession may be deemed renounced following a second (?) consecutive absence, thereby triggering the convening of an advisory council of three members to consider the possibility of dismissal, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Precept IV: “Regarding Dismissal, Resignation, and Readmission.” Exceptions will be granted to Companions who meet the criteria outlined in Precept IV: “Limited Ability to Participate in the Life of the Community.” Two unexcused absences, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, shall be considered a renunciation of vows
Blogging Objective:
Your thoughts and edits are important to ensure that this language reflects our values and serves the community effectively. Please share any insights and feedback you may have along with rationale. Again, even though only Life Professed Companions vote on changes to the Founding Document, all Companions, regardless of vow status, are encouraged to comment on the proposed language.
Deadline:
BLOGGING CLOSES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 10:00 EDT
I agree with Bro. Andrew Aelred’s nuance of the sanction language. We have all chosen to embrace the Charitist vocation with complete personal freedom. There is no arm twisting to be fully present to Guiding Document and our annual General Assembly.
I think that scribing sanction language that truly reflects the spirit and charism of the Order is difficult task to undertake together. It should be difficult to undertake because it calls us to a deep reflection about that which is most important to each of us. Our life is both a blessing and a challenge with consequences. This is part of personal commitment. I agree with Bro. Aidan Daniel about where this section belongs, it should then speak to the soul of each Charitist because it clearly speaks of the deepest level of our communal and personal agreement, our covenanted love. Peace is ours in XP!
I agree that we sit with this. I also would like to “hear” whatever anyone’s thoughts are. I find it helpful to to see how it all evolves. I will be mulling the most recent posts.
I, also, agree that we take approriate time to continue to mull this big step over. I am reminded in this moment of the gentle and merciful gardener of Sunday’s Gospel. More manure?
I’ve been thinking and praying about this … a lot! My thoughts have evolved a bit.
I suggest that sanction language not be included within The Founding Document. Instead, all sanction-related language should be outlined in a separate document, similar to The Memorandum of Understanding in Establishing Local Leadership in Brazil. This approach would ensure that The Founding Document remains focused on its foundational guiding principles while allowing for greater flexibility in updating and adapting sanction language as needed. By maintaining sanction provisions separately, we could make necessary revisions without going through the formal process of amending The Founding Document, enabling a more responsive and adaptable approach to the issue. It also helps ensure The Founding Document does not become overly legalistic.
Thoughts?
I agree with Bro. Aidan’s latest remark. I also think that we can take some time discerning the sanction’s issue. Lastly, I would not like any sanctions to apply for this GA coming up; companions may have made plans based on the previous understanding of the Founding Document.
Absolutely no sanctions will be applied to this upcoming GA, as they do not yet exist. Even if they did applying them would be unjust.
The resounding silence of the community on this issue speaks much. It is clear that we have not “settled” with this language at all, and I myself have some uneasiness with it. It was only a starting point, and as I said when it was posted, it could be completely rewritten.
Perhaps we are at the point where we don’t know what type of sanction should be applied here – which clearly indicates the need for further discernment. I am thinking a group of four should dedicated some focused work and discernment on this issue – after seeking feedback from the community. I have a group of four in mind, but I am going to throw it open to the Spirit and ask if anyone feels called to do this work for the community. If you do, please let me know.
I propose we delay any further decisions on this language at this time and discern the matter more deeply.
What does the community think?
I apologize for my late response. I do believe that attendance should be expected of all companions barring unforeseen circumstances and with permission of the servant guardian. We are a community, and I believe that our time together is essential to the health and wellbeing of the community. Coming together creates connection that virtual conversation simply cannot.
Bro. Therese Mikel Francis
I think that is a good plan. There’s not as much conversation on this topic as we need for any effective collective agreement. The only caveat would be, would companions see an addendum memorandum as enforceable or would it be dismissed as part of that familiar argument of “not being in the Founding Document”. This would be something that we need to come to terms with at General Assembly (another good reason for actually attending).
That document would be cited in the Founding Document, so it would be IN The Founding Document. We would use language similar to this:
“Pursuant to the authority vested in The Founding Document and the office of the Servant Guardian, the document titled GA Non-Attendance Sanctions (or whatever name we give it) shall be considered an enforceable extension of the principles and provisions outlined in The Founding Document. As such, all stipulations, requirements, and consequences specified within GA Non-Attendance Sanctions are binding upon all Companions and those in the Foundation Program and shall be administered in accordance with the governance framework established by The Founding Document and under the oversight of the Servant Guardian. Exceptions will be granted to Companions who meet the criteria outlined in Precept IV: Limited Ability to Participate in the Life of the Community.
Any amendments, interpretations, or applications of GA Non-Attendance Sanctions shall remain subject to the guiding principles of The Founding Document, ensuring alignment with its foundational purpose and intent.”
I think language like this makes it clear that it is binding and enforceable.
Here is my proposed edits to the text above. This is headed in a good direction. I chose the wording for two occurrences within a two year period because that would work effectively with the following section in which a third consecutive absence triggers the panel. Since the Servant Guardian is able to excuse absence one and two, we wouldn’t sanction until absence three (if we did so upon absence two, it would negate the excuse by the servant guardian for that absence). I also appreciate that a panel of three would form to alleviate the Servant Guardian from having to take action alone.
What I didn’t express the first go round was that a rule without consequences (even a formal activation of the mechanism that is already in the rule) is no rule at all, just a suggestion. Since we seem to have an issue with the dedication of companions throughout the years, having consequences written along side a rule impresses upon us the serious nature of the need for the attendance requirement, especially for those considering formation. For those who are new amongst us, it shows our dedication to the community, our dedication to being present with one another. I do, also, want to acknowledge that the All Holy tends to steer a companion into and out of community as well. Sometimes these technicalities may not be needed because the companion will listen to the Holy Spirit pointing them in a different direction. However, as we have seen in the past, there have been “companions” who have been companions-by-name alone and only attended General Assembly once in a decade even. There needs to be a mechanism such that our leadership, whoever it may be, may be able to act instead of being tied down by the lack of clarity in the rule and disobedient bending of the will of the community for the lack of technical black and white rules.
I might add, in addition to our conversations here, I saw some writing about flights and driving to Wisconsin and I want to note it in relation to this conversation. That trek is a two day journey for the Tennessee companions with how the start time of General Assembly lines up with travel time, day light, and energy (as I get older and my eyes get worse, night driving on interstates is a bad idea). I make that journey to attend because I LOVE General Assembly and I LOVE the companions. Two days of driving doesn’t matter when a slice of heaven is waiting for me. It is a sacred time. The second we announce when General Assembly is taking place, I pull out the office and personal calendar and mark it down as being out. Dylan, the bishop, and my colleagues know that it is a sacred time not to be encroached upon. I understand it can be annoying to fly or drive, but it is all part of the experience of laboring before the reprieve of General Assembly. I am sure that, in the future, there might be something that comes up to prevent me from coming as well, but that will be discussed with the Servant Guardian as outlined below. And, I know my situation is not universal. My mother was a NICU nurse and I am sure that every year of attendance would have been impossible, but with negotiation and prioritization, General Assembly would have been achievable every other year or third year.
If General Assembly isn’t able to be attended within that time frame, it may just be that this community or the call to new monasticism isn’t the right fit for this time in a companion’s life.
This is all about communication, relationship, and priorities.
Here’s my suggested edits now that I’m done with the thinking behind it:
Attendance at General Assembly is required every year for Companions and those in the Foundation Program.
The Servant Guardian may grant an excused absence from General Assembly for two occurrences within a two-year period, but only for valid reasons such as health, work obligations, being out of the country, or family crisis. Companions are required to allocate adequate time to engage in direct communication with the Servant Guardian to discuss their attendance in the event of unavoidable circumstances. Merely providing notification of their absence from General Assembly shall not constitute an excused absence.
A Companion’s profession may be deemed renounced upon a third consecutive absence, thereby triggering the convening of an advisory council of three members to consider the possibility of dismissal, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Precept IV: “Regarding Dismissal, Resignation, and Readmission.” Exceptions will be granted to Companions who meet the criteria outlined in Precept IV: “Limited Ability to Participate in the Life of the Community.” Two unexcused absences, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, shall be considered a renunciation of vows.