INTRODUCTION

This topic has always raised much discussion and engaged religious missionaries in strong debates and lively exchanges. The parameters of such exchanges revolved around the following questions: Are the two realities compatible with each other, or one eliminates the other? Does mission leave much room to community, or community to mission? Is mission more important than community so that in case of conflict the latter should give way, or vice versa?
Before Vatican II the normal tendency was to stress the importance of community over and above mission. Our Founder wrote to the very first missionaries in 1903 that it was very important for each community to have at least three members. If that is not possible, the mission should be closed. (XGC, p.35) Strong words. But were they followed while the Founder himself was alive? The Chapter Acts comment: “This rule has had many exceptions right from the beginning of the life of our Institute, and even nowadays is considered utopic and impossible to be put into practice. (id) In fact most missions still have two members, and it is not unusual to find only one.
In the first twenty year after the Council, the normal tendency was to highlight mission over community. Mission was stressed so much that it did not matter a lot how many members were engaged in the same community, or whether there were meetings to improve community life, or community planning existed etc. As long as missionaries were engaged in their mission and they produced fruits of conversion, of human development, of progress in the fight for human rights and social justice, they received the esteem of others, of their Institutes and of the Church. The belief, or at least the hope was that as long as mission thrived, community would be fine. The fruits of good missionary work would spill out over the community and somehow enrich it, make its life more vibrant and holier! To insist on community life was considered an effort al naval gazing, a narcissistic activity, almost a betrayal of the mandate: Go, preach, baptize, make disciples, announce the forgiveness of sins, announce and build the kingdom.
From the middle of the 80s a change took place. A change which was dictated more by the experience of the missionaries themselves, than from above. The missionaries saw that several of their colleagues lost their faith and sense of the divine, left the religious or priestly life, still others were burnt out , exhausted, depleted of all inner strength, to find themselves, as one told me, “sacchi vuoti” (empty bags), tossed by the wind, easy pray of any new comer or proposal. Mission life had become so complex and difficult, so taxing from the psychological and religious perspectives, that, it was felt, community life had to be somehow revived and reinvented for the sake of a better balance and happier mission.
The missionaries re-discovered the need of harmonizing mission and community, but with a different approach to both. Mission took upon itself brand new meanings and was conducted with a different style by most missionaries, and the horizon of community was expanded to include not only the community of the Institute one belonged to, but also other groups with whom one would associate for specific needs and reasons.

THE EXPERIENCE IN THE MISSIONARIES’ LIFE
If mission ad community are essential to our religious-missionary life, the question can, and should be raised: how are they lived in the day-to-day life of the missionaries. Are they harmoniously blended, or are there serious tensions between the two of them? It seems that the common experience is that there are serious difficulties to keep them both together and make them grow in us, when community is relegated only to the canonical group of people one lives with.. Some of the difficulties are due to personalities, others to the nature of missionary life, still others to some modern developments of our religious life, and finally others to the nature of community itself.

1. Difficulties due to personalities
Every community is made of persons with distinct characters whose traits are often opposite and even contradictory. This causes daily aggravations, regular tensions, which affect adversely community life and missionary activities, erodes the trust with each other, at times even the respect we owe to one another. Characters make people act in such a way that their behavior becomes normal to them, and seldom do they recognize the potentials for friction in community life.
If we add to these natural traits the different intellectual and spiritual preparation members have undergone during their training, the causes for friction augment considerably. What for a member is sacred matter of faith, for another is a matter of opinion only; what for one is serious and unquestionable moral matter, for another is nothing more that the opinion of the Roman Curia; what for one is considered blind obedience to authority, for another is inability to think for oneself; what for one is an abuse in liturgical celebrations, for another is creativity and/or free expression.
One can easily imagine the hot debates, the deep suspicions, the lack of trust these situations can create, and also the serious impediments in community living and missionary programs.
If community and mission are essentials in our identity, and if one sticks only to one type of community, would this community charged with such tensions and frictions be able to fulfil all the roles of the community as described above?

2. Difficulties due to the nature of missionary life
The understanding of mission and its components is changing so fast that even a well balanced missionary, a solidly grounded cross-cultural minister, could have trouble to follow the changes, to discern the true Spirit filled ones from the pure fads, to internalize them and put them into practice. The pendulum of mission theology has swung all the way from exclusively salvation of souls to holistic salvation, from building the church as an institution to forming communities, from a priestly missionary centered activity to a shared activity by several ministers, including the lay; from going the “catholic way” only, to going together with other Christians and non-Christians religions, from isolationism to dialogue, from mainly giving to mutuality, from pure development to justice and peace, from a Western Church to an inculturated, global Church.
These and similar switches have deeply divided the missionaries, their divisive influence is felt at the local community level, at the Regional level, especially in the Regional Conferences. The effects of all these changes on the missionaries are well described by the last Chapter: “Many missionaries who possess a deep love for the Mission, understand the value of the “new”. They would like to merge it with the tradition, but do not know how. They wind up fluctuating between one attitude and the other. Some have recourse automatically to tradition and consider inappropriate any kind of adaptation and renewal. They limit themselves to a literal interpretation of the Gospel and of the Founder. There are those who look only for whatever is new. They accept any change without even asking themselves whether it is in accord with our identity. There are also those who do not see themselves in any of the above, and simply suffer in silence and retreat into themselves, generating pockets of isolation, indifference and mediocrity that weigh negatively on the community” (p. 21)
Obviously, all this has an influence on our communities, it makes their life more difficult, it complicates relationships, etc. Can one type of community alone fulfil all the needs of the missionaries, and help their growth, and their ministries? Doubtfully so!

3. Difficulties from internationality
In the last thirty years, most of our Regions and many of our communities have become international. This phenomenon is more visible in the Regions with fewer members. The fourteen members of Venezuela belong to seven nationalities. The ten members of the Ivory Coast to four nationalities. And the 10 members of South Korea from three nationalities. Obviously the local communities follow the same trend of internationality and one can find three members of a community belonging to three nationalities.
This trend could enrich a community as the Chapter reminds us: ”The internationality of our communities expresses the catholicity of the Church and makes it visible…anticipates the accomplishment of the future Kingdom…. Witness to the truth that is possible to live in fraternity and to overcome any racial, cultural and social barrier…. accomplish in a more perfect way the task of promoting and realizing communion as a Gospel value.” (p.35) Seldom do this happen. More often internationality creates ill feelings in the members, it distorts their perception of each other, it creates chasms among themselves. The cultural values differ and are not properly understood, the cultural attitudes are judged out of context and are condemned, the efforts of inculturation are considered extravaganza. And so many times we hear sentences which state: “they are iper-active”, or “they are lazy”; “they want to change the Institute”, or “they do not want to move at all”; “they do not want to relinquish power”, or “they are too young to lead the Institute”, et similia!
The Chapter expands deeper and to a large scale this phenomenon when it states: “Because of the internationality of our communities, the difficulty of inculturation does not limit itself to the traditional indigenous cultures only, or those which have slightly moved away from the original culture of each member. It applies also to the western world, and it challenges those who enter it for any reasons….When we tried to communicate with the young people our ideas, concepts and even forms of witnessing, we see that we were not able to communicate….” (p.76)
At the end of this section, let us ask again the same question, but on a larger scale: “If all missionaries and religious communities, ours included, experience the same tensions, difficulties, can they ALONE perform for the missionaries all the tasks a community is supposed to do? Or, rephrasing the sentence in another way: “Can the missionaries find in those communities ALONE all the means for their human, psychological, spiritual, religious, ministerial growth? Will they be able to express their problems and needs freely, to share with openness and thoroughness their inner selves? Can they hope to find some understanding and acceptance in their struggle for identity in communities, which are filled with tension, with misunderstandings, and with racist/national prejudices? Or should missionaries try very honestly to give themselves as much as possible to the canonical community they are members of, but, at the same time, think of branching out to seek others communities which can perform for them certain talks not available in the former community? Before I answer this question, I would like to review briefly the nature of community, and study the example of Jesus and in a much shorter way of our Founder, to draw some inspiration and support in the thesis I will submit at the end of this article.

NATURE OF COMMUNITY

There is a lot of literature on community life. Some books are very popular like the one of Fr. Amedeo Cencini Articles written for general assemblies of Major Superiors abound, like the one by Fabio Ciardi . They seem to be very idealistic in their approach to community life, and, above all, they do not tackle the issue we are discussing here. They promote the canonical community, but do not say a word on what to do if that community does not fulfill all the requirements of community living. One of the more realistic books is the one written by J. Vanier. At any rate, it is useful to summarize here, even very briefly, the major characteristics of community living, in order to keep them in mind when we ask the question: can one community ONLY offer the possibilities of personal, ministerial, professional e religious growth in mission lands?

There are three major constitutive models of religious community: the anthopological model, the theological model and the ecclesial model . Each of them proposes very high standards of life. The anthropological model requires that a religious, like any other human being, should be open to an interpersonal relationship….God the Creator, who has revealed Himself as Love, Trinity, communion, has called a person to establish an intimate rapport with God and an interpersonal communion, e.i. universal fraternity” .
The theological model moves community life into the bosom of the Trinity. “Community life wishes to mirror the depth and the riches of the Trinitarian mystery, shaping itself as the human space inhabited by the Trinity, and thus extending into history the gifts of communion of the three Divine Persons”
The Ecclesial Model tries to “integrate opposite tendencies like the push towards ad intra and ad extra (communion and mission), the realization of the individual and of the community, the personal freedom and the building of fraternity, prayer and mission etc. One can easily see the loftus ideals proper to community living, and how difficult it si to even move closer to their realization.
But one can look at community life from a very pragmatic point of view, and we may reach the same conclusions
Community life is a place where people live together, share with one another, pray together, prepare their Plan of Community Living and their Operational Plan of activities, share their goods and riches. Their life is directed by the Constitutions and General Directory, their superiors exercise some role of motivation, coordination and control, and the canonical visitations review the situation, asks for corrections. But, above all, community life is a style of living, an atmosphere for living where God is supreme, the only object of the members’ attention and love; where Jesus is the Elder Brother and all the members are true brothers; where all the aspects of growth of the person have a good chance of fulfillment; where correction of each other and help for one another are usually given and accepted; where normally there is joy and happiness; where sharing of all the physical, psychological and spiritual gifts is enriching the members; where mission is shared and becomes the driving force of the members; where hospitality is practiced with finesse and gentleness; where dialogue is the normal way of resolving issues and differences; where the human heart can feel free and loved, and all its longing are nurtured . “Oggi più che in altri tempi, la comunità religiosa è chiamata ad essere “segno di fraternità”:….Per questo la fraternità religiosa dev’essere vissuta in modo pieno e radicale, ma anche visibile e attraente. La comunità deve saper dire the è possibile vivere uniti nella diversità, crescere e santificarsi insieme: deve testimoniare che non è solo possibile, ma anche bello, condividere lavoro e abitazione, gioie e preoccupazioni, affetti e amicizie, preghiere e Parola, doni di natura e dello Spirito”
Better words could not have been written. But is our experience of community life corresponding to this description? Have we ever experienced in our life as missionaries this type of community? In my fifty years of community life, and thirty years of contact with missionaries of all institutes and nationalities, I have asked this question over and over. The answer is that it would be beautiful to have such experience: but it is next to impossible especially in missionary life, for the reasons we have mentioned above. How many times I have heard our missionaries say: do not bring candidates to this or the other community, or to all our communities of this region, because they would be scandalized. Or, do not bring lay people to our communities, because they would be disturbed by what they may see. This does not mean that the members of our Institute are bad, or do not care about religious community, but that the conditions of such community in mission lands are so precarious, so difficult that their existence is next to impossible. What Fr. Cencini points out about the difficulties of all communities, is even more applicable to comunities in mission areas. “Anzi, forse lacomunità è il luogo in cui, realisticamente,certi limiti sono ancorpiù sollecitati eprovocati, e ove la vulnerabilità si rende ancor più visibile e a volte minacciosa. La vita comunitaria è la rivelazione penosissima, spesso inattesa, delle debolezze e delle tenebre personali, dei ‘mostri’ nascosti in noi, ‘è il luogo in cui si scopre la profonda ferita del proprio essere e in cui si impara ad accettarla’”


THE EXPERIENCE OF COMMUNITIES OF JESUS

Even a superficial reading of the Gospel will reveal that Jesus was a very sociable person, he was a member of several groups from whom he drew strength, support, intimacy, with whom he ministered to the people’s needs, to whom he co-operated wholeheartedly even while experiencing difficulties and, at times, even some agony.
1. Jesus was very sociable and likeable
Jesus was a friend of everybody and did not exclude anybody from his friendship (Mt 12:48-50). He felt good with the children who flocked to him instinctively (Mt 18:2; 19:113-15; Lc 18: 15-17)); He was compassionate with the poor, the sick, the abandoned (Mc 1:29-39); He felt great compassion with people in sorrow (Lc 7:11-17); He felt at home with the righteous and the sinners (Mc 2:13-17); He was at ease with men and women (Lc 8:1-3; Jn 4); He visited, dined with those who were considered sinners by society and included them among his close disciples (Mt 8:9-13); people felt that he was an extraordinary man, and yet they were not afraid to contact him, to touch him, to go to him (Lk 6:19). Jesus was a sociable human being and found in peoples some of his joy, of his strength, and means of human growth (Jn 2: 1-12). This process which began at home with his own family (Lc 2: 39-40; 51) continued all his public life with the people around him. Normal friendship was a moment of grace for him, and all the people who followed him were vehicles of God’s love for him, and He for them (Jn 2: 11-13)

2. Jesus was a member of an evangelizing community
Among all his followers, Jesus chose seventy two whom he kept closer to himself, sent out on evangelizing missions, instructed them at length, listened to their reports, corrected some of their behavior, shared with them in a deeper fashion some of his fundamental principles of action (Lc 10:121). With this group Jesus is more open, more direct, closer than with the followers in general. It was a large group, and yet not too large to prevent some close ties, a little deeper sharing, some activities of the same nature he performed. In this case, the chosen ones are not only passive receivers of Jesus teaching and influence, but participants in his mission, recipients of deeper sharing, interlocutors with Jesus about his mandate from the Father. In modern terms we would call them affiliates, aggregates, part time co-workers, who do not feel the call for full membership in the Institute, or do not have the possibility of a life long commitment because of previous life commitments, and yet they are influenced by our charism, by the Allamano spirituality, and wish to participate periodically and ad hoc activities of the Institute.

3. Jesus was a member of the community of the twelve, his regular community
Among all his disciples Jesus set aside twelve men, whom he called apostles (Mc 3: 13-19), and who became the normal community of his life and ministry (Lc 6: 12-18). He lived with them constantly, he instructed them in all his principles of life and mission (Mt 10: 5-15), he shared with them all his activities (Acts 1:21-22), he gave them the same powers he had (Mt 10: 1; 28: 18-20), he shared with them to a much greater depth than with anybody else (Mc 4: 33-34), he made of them his partners and co-workers (Lc 9: 1-6), he traveled with them constantly. They were the extended family of Jesus, the normal community he belonged to, the witnesses of all his deeds, his struggles, his achievements, his defeats, his high as well as low points (Lc 10: 23-24). They were part of him and he was part of them. The bond of friendship between Jesus and his apostles grew very deep and the trust among them was very strong so that at times Jesus can scold them (Mt 16:5-11), and they could ask him tough questions, and he could give them harsh answers (Mt 16: 22-23).
Even among the Apostles, Jesus had three with whom he shared at a deeper level and made them witnesses of a few of his life’s pick experiences, such as his Transfiguration (Lc 9:28-36), the prayers in the Garden of Olives (Mc 14:32-41).

4. Jesus was a member of a mixed community
Women are part of Jesus’ life and ministry. Very often He heals them (Lc13: 10 -13; Mt 8: 14-15; 9: 18-26), he praises them in public for their good deeds (Lc 21:1-4), He is comfortable with them and has no problems to share with them even in private, despite the sense of bewilderment of the apostles (Jn 4: 1-27). But Jesus is more than a friend of women.
The members of the communities which Jesus was part of, did not include only men, but also women (Lc 8: 1.3). And they were very active members, outstanding in their loyalty, strong in moments of trouble (Lc 23: 54; Jn 19: 25), generous with their possessions (Lc 8:3). They were following him like the apostles, certainly they were instructed by him like them, and, in general, they became a prominent presence. The one who may have inspired these women to follow Jesus, and to relate with him, may have been his mother. Mary is constantly present with the women, she is referred to by name almost every time women are mentioned in the Bible and probably became their model and inspiration. This mixed community has certainly added something special in the life of Jesus, in His understanding of human relationships and human behavior. Definitely his personality has the characteristics of an individual who has blended together very harmoniously the masculine and the feminine, to become the prototype of the androgynous being: strong and gentle, affable and challenging, outgoing and inwardly looking, active and contemplative, a dreamer and a realist, totally involved in the present and yet transcending it, thoughtful and loving, friendly with everybody and yet nurturing special friendships, not excluding anybody but with some preferences very noticeable as to provoke the reaction of the others around (Mc 10:41)

5. Jesus was a member of an intimate community
Jesus was a fully human being, and he needed to have someone who could fulfill all his emotional needs. And he found these people in the members of the family of Lazarus. Mary, Martha and Lazarus became his intimate family, the place to unwind, to rest, to be loved and to love. With these three persons Jesus could feel free to unload all his troubles, preoccupations, difficulties, sure to have a sympathetic hearing from them. These members could get close to him, treat him as one of them, touch him, and laugh with him. He also felt free to gently rebuke them, as they did the same to Jesus. (Lc 10: 38-42; Jn 12: 1-3). This is a wonderfully human story of people who are together because they really love each other and through their mutual love they find comfort, solace, strength and joy in their life. They are able to cry out of love, to make demands which only love can suggest, to accept answers which only love can suggest, to believe beyond any human limitations (Jn 11: 1-44). No wonder the last TV movie on Jesus produced by RAI stressed so much this aspect of Jesus’ life. Whether or not one can accept the extent of the relationship of Jesus especially with Mary as to convert it into a romantic love could be up for grab. But surely the Gospels have sown the seeds for such an interpretation in the way they portray the behavior of Jesus with this family.

In closing this section of the paper, and based on the best evidence of the Gospels, we are able to draw some conclusions of extreme importance to our thesis. In Jesus’ life community and mission are mutually inclusive, not exclusive. Jesus makes of community and mission two constitutive elements of the disciple, as they were in his life. Jesus is called and is sent; he nurtures community life and he exercises mission at the same time; he stays with the members of the community, prays with them, discusses issues with them, plans work with them, and goes out to
work with them, to evangelize, to heal, to help. He asked the disciples to wait in prayer in the upper room for the coming of the Spirit so that they could begin their mission in a proper way. The disciples gathered regularly for the breaking of the bread, and going out to mission and evangelization. And the women were there as well.
If community is constitutive for Jesus and for the disciples, we can ask the question. What type of community? One community only? Multiple communities? The answer is clear in the Gospels: multiple communities have been the choice of Jesus. Could that be also the choice of his disciples during the centuries? For Jesus the issue of community and mission is not resolved with an either-or solution, but with a one and the otherS solution. The others being in the plural.
I would like to make reference to our Founder who, too, treasured community and mission, and lived the tension between the two in himself, before asking his followers to do the same. He was a sociable person and had friends in all walks of life; he was a member of a community of prayer, the canons of the cathedral of Turin; he was a member of an academic community at the Convitto; he was a member of two missionary communities of the IMC and MC; he was close with his ministries to men and women, lay and religious, whom he helped in their journey to holiness; he kept very close ties of friendship with a priest and Sr. Dorotea, a relative of his to whom he would open his heart and reveal its secrets and difficulties with the family. He also kept very close ties with a friend of his from the Oratorio of Don Bosco with whom he shared personal information and confidential news about himself and his life and ministry

APPLICABILITY OF THIS THESIS TO OUR SITUATIONS
Given the necessity of community and mission, the difficulty of combining them together when one insists on belonging to one community only, and the example of Jesus who was a member of several communities and practiced mission with all their members while fulfilling all his needs, we ask now whether his example could inspire us and, by following it, we could come to the same hights of community living and missionary activities. Let us review briefly the types of community which could be open to us and which could create in our lives the same harmony between mission and community as it did for Jesus.

1. Our canonical community
We are members of a canonical community called the IMC community. This is the first community we should be concerned about, and work with as hard as possible, to make it work. Our primary allegiance should be to the confreres who have pledged themselves to the same vocation, in the same family, with the same spirit of the Allamano. A lack of active membership in this community, or of a serious commitment to it, would forfeit all the other efforts at becoming members of other communities. Any effort at substituting this canonical community with other groups, would amount to a betrayal of our commitment to it, sealed with our religious profession. If this community fulfils all our needs, and is capable of sustaining the best efforts in our missionary work, we should stick to it, and make of it our only or, at least, the most treasured community. But if this canonical community cannot perform all the roles described above, then we should still practice all the requirements demanded by the Constitutions faithfully and joyfully, like pry together, prepare the PCL, socialize periodically, evaluate our life as a group, etc. But after that, we could feel free to be part of other communities which complement the role and influence of our IMC community, without ever substituting it.

2. Other communities

a. Based on spiritual needs
We Consolatas have a spirituality which our Blessed Founder lived and developed for us out of his experience and that of his first missionaries. But for one reason or another, certain elements of that spirituality are not developed well in certain communities, even after many efforts of its members, such as Marian Devotion, prayer life, family spirit, etc. The members of the communities where these or other spiritual elements are not properly developed, may feel called to a greater realization of a particular aspect of our spirituality, and so they should feel free to join movements or groups which promote that particular aspect of spirituality. All of our confreres are entitled to the best means for developing and/or practicing all aspects of IMC spirituality. Should these means not be available in some of our communities, they have the responsibility to search for them elsewhere.
Many of us are aware that some of our confreres nurture family spirit at the fountain of the Focolare movement, or Marian devotion with the Montfortian sources, or the freedom and joy in the Spirit with the catholic charismatics. At times negative remarks are passed on them, or they are looked upon as defectors from the Consolata spirit. Should we not support their efforts at becoming better Consolatas by deepening constitutive elements of our spirituality which do not find much support, or adequate development in our communities?

b. Based on ministerial needs
Missionaries are involved in a lot of activities, and they perform many ministries. At one time, not too long ago, they were performing all the ministries in the Church and also in the community. But at present the Spirit of the Lord is blessing the Church with a great variety of ministers: ordained and non-ordained, religious and lay, young and old, highly educated and with simple education, full time and many part-time, etc. Mission is promoted through these ministers and their respective charisma. All these ministers need to plan together, to pray for their ministries, to evaluate their performance, to support each other. They are in need of a community which is formed around the needs for ministerial life and performance. Fragmentation of ministries leads to chaos: coordination within complementarity engenders trust, energy and efficiency.
Missionaries can promote the establishment of communities made of ministers, and they can be part of these communities. They, in fact, nurture the life of ministers, they promote their ministerial growth, they are focused around the common denominator of ministerial performance which can help ministers. The time when ministry was based primarily, if not exclusively, on intellectual preparation, which gave the ministers an upper hand, a position of superiority, and made of them the only leaders of the community is over. The time to base ministry on a charism, on the call of the Spirit for a certain activity has come, and all ministers are equal, they can learn from each other, stimulate their respective growth. By shedding some of their superiority complex, and by accepting charisma wherever they are inspired by the Spirit, missionaries can become members of these communities, participate in their life and programs as one among equals, learn a lot from the others as well as contribute a lot to them. In this way they can better all the time their ministerial spirituality, their performance in the ministry assigned to them, and find in these communities all the help proper to their ministry.
While here I have spoken about communities made of several ministers, a word should be said about communities formed of members who share the same ministry, such as professors, spiritual directors, formators, etc. They do not benefit from the cross-fertilization of many charisma present in the same group, but they sharpen their own charism by meeting periodically, sharing the latest about the field of their expertise, and nurturing a type of fellowship which enriches them and their ministry.

c. Based on the participation of men and women
At present communities made of men or women only are mostly religious communities. Most of the others include members of both sexes. This bisexual context provides a unique opportunity for mutual enrichment. In the interaction of men and women there is the best possibility of becoming the androgynous persons modern society needs. Men will learn to tone down their machismo, their sense of superiority, their innate drive to feel in charge of situations, to control them, and to increase the finesse of their feelings, the desire for sharing, the need for dependence in order to correct and enrich their personality. And the women will learn to shake off their sense of dependency, of subordination, to become more assertive in meetings and planning sessions, to become freer in their self-expressions. Each needs to believe in the other, to trust the other, to listen with the mind and the heart to what the other says, to blend harmoniously the masculine and the feminine so as to develop a personality which is strong and gentle, active and contemplative, aggressive and receptive, outgoing and recollected. This mixed community can become the best school for an integrated living and ministry.
Institutes of women and men which have the same Founder and the same spirit, and which do pastoral work in the same parishes/missions or institutions, should provide possibilities to their candidates for joint programs to help them integrate their personality with the best traits of both sexes and be able to live and cooperate harmoniously in their future life and ministry together. And also provide for the elder members possibilities in their ongoing formation to achieve the same purpose. Many tragic situations could be avoided, and a much better witness of communion and ministry together could be provided to societies which are divided in tribes, classes, casts, sex etc., and which need models of communion of different persons. Many missionaries who have been engaged in this process of metamorphosis have experienced a great freedom in their ministries, much growth in their psychological and spiritual maturity, and, above all, a deep joy of re-discovering each other and becoming channels of grace of one another.

d. Based on the need for intimacy
Intimacy is the nearness established between the members of a group which allows anyone of them to share from the bottom of the heart, to cry when things are painful, to laugh when they are joyful, to be open to normal expressions of love and sympathy, to feel a bond of love which penetrates the heart and warms it up. Intimacy makes community more like family, like home, like a domestic religious place. Intimacy helps people accept each others as they are, while prodding them to become better, it does not threaten to be known with faults, defects and even sins. Intimacy soothes the pain, refreshes the heat of the journey, prods the betterment of the self.
This intimacy exists with the members of a group, not between two persons of the opposite sex. That is a different case altogether, the so called third way, and does not have anything to do with what is being said here. The intimacy spoken about here exists between at least three or more people. It is expressed within the group itself. It is the manifestation of the love, the trust, the confidence which exists between the members.
Such a community may become a necessity in mission lands where the solitude is the norm, where communities are made of two or three members of the same Institute and sex, and allows very little room for intimacy. Where community life is intertwined with work, frictions, differences which tend to divide more than unite, where hurting the others is an almost daily occurrence, and healing becomes more and more difficult. How can a person carry on her/his mission unless his/her feelings are expressed freely, their fears openly talked about, their anxieties carried by all the members?
The intimacy community serves this purpose. Without it the consequences may be rather serious. Either a person withdraws into him/herself and becomes a misanthrope, or gets too close to another person with ominous possibilities of unfaithfulness to their commitment, or the likelihood of exhaustion and of a nervous brake down lurking in the background.
I recall that when I arrived in Kenya the second time in 1985 I met with a very good friend of mine with whom I had worked for many years in the USA. This was a brilliant person, a workaholic, a first class organizer, a dedicated missionary. I could not recognize him! Total abulia, spaced in the sky, fearful, disappointed with everything around him, bitter and caustic. A few weeks later he was taken to a hospital with a total break down. When I visited him and asked him what had happened, he answered: I did not have anybody to talk to, to share with, to unload my feelings on, and I have exploded. He was repatriated, he went from one psychiatrist to another, from one hospital to another, and has never been the same. That shocked me up. I met together with other expatriates, we reflected on this awful event and we decided to form a group which would meet the first Sunday of the month in the afternoon and evening. We would pray together with love, we would share our anguish, our joy, our struggles, the misunderstandings in community or ministry, etc. We would put our arms around somebody who was crying, or joke freely with someone who was too serious, or pray over somebody, for some special favor. Then we would have a pot luck supper, socialize more, get close to someone who was in difficulty, become helpers to each other. The bonds established in that group are still very much alive, and we continue to write to each other, to visit when we are close by, to be supportive of the journey which is still going on. That letting the steam out, that sharing from the bottom of the heart, that knowing that we would be acceptable no matter what we told the others, that warm atmosphere where feelings were not suppressed, but expressed freely and in public, kept us going, kept us happy, kept us committed, kept us hole and holy in our lives.

CONCLUSION

This short study on community and mission has brought us to the conclusion that both these realities must be present in the life of religious-missionaries. It is not a question of either- or, but one and the other. To separate them would be to go against the teachings and the examples of Jesus, and of our Founder.
The daily experience of missionaries who try to harmonize community life with missionary life tells us that this is a very difficult, if not an impossible case altogether. Mission communities are usually very small, the characters of the members are different, the frequent frictions which come from living, working together makes it difficult to pray well, to be open, to share without holding back. Mission communities have a hard time to fulfill all the needs of an individual, and yet they are expected to do that. In fact a community is a gathering of people who bond together to achieve holiness, to perform ministries in the best possible way, and to fulfil the needs each members has. This can hardly be preformed by one community only. Hence the need for missionaries to become members of groups of people each helping the growth of an area of their religious-spiritual life, of their ministry, and the fulfillment of basic needs present in the individual missionary.
By expanding the horizon of community, and by accepting the multiplicity of membership in various communities, there is a much greater chance for missionaries to harmonize the two realities in their lives, and to be faithful to both of them.
We missionaries need to be a little more creative in the approach to this issue, to be bolder in its resolution, and to allow our confreres to experiment and to share their experiences for the good of all. It is an exercise in futility to continue to write about the necessity of community life, and not face the real difficulties in living it out. It can even become counterproductive, if we do not offer a way out of this dilemma. And it seems to me that the way out is to insists on life in communities each providing the missionaries with enrichment, with fulfillment so that his/her mission can become a beautiful adventure, a wonderful challenge and a rewarding activity.