News - Catholics for Ministry

A hierarchy deeply damaged from within

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -1000

[Here we reprint one of the best summaries of the actual state of the contemporary church from an editorial of the US National Catholic Reporter, 8 July 2010]

A hierarchy deeply damaged from within

The first half of 2010 has been a particularly bumpy patch for the papacy of Benedict XVI. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. This pope had as goals to sharpen the teaching of the world’s largest Christian denomination, to do battle with secularism and relativism, and to convince the world, Catholic and otherwise, that Christianity authentically lived is more about possibilities and new freedom than about “thou shalt nots” and other restrictions.

His program has been seriously sidelined by the lingering effects of the sex abuse scandal in the United States; the explosion of the scandal in Ireland, Germany, Italy and now Belgium; and the diminishment of the episcopal office, particularly in those countries most affected by the scandal.

Are we witnessing the ecclesial equivalent of one of those slow-motion depictions of implosion, the kind where a seemingly invulnerable structure falls in upon itself, laid waste by some well-placed explosives? Perhaps.

It would be a mistake, however, to think that what is imploding is the church. The church is, in many ways, just fine. What is imploding, rather, is a culture of clericalism, especially the hierarchical layer of that culture, which has become so disconnected in many of its expressions from the core mandates of Christian scripture that it seems to barely function at all.

The authority that has been slowly leaking from the structure for decades is now gushing out as bishops contort themselves in attempts to convince the world of their good intentions and transparency while simultaneously railing against those within the church and without who are working to reveal the truth.

The shocking raid of a bishops’ meeting in Belgium is but the latest indication of the degree to which the old protections and privileges enjoyed by the clerical culture are disintegrating. It stands as a clear symbol that an age is ending. The disintegration could be seen occurring during the past quarter century in the United States under the grinding weight of revelations that the Catholic hierarchy had repeatedly protected those who had sexually molested children and had hidden the crimes from the church and the wider community.

It continued in Catholic Ireland, where the deep betrayal of the community caused a serious exodus from the church amid lingering anger. In one of the greater absurdities of this period of crisis, church leaders in Rome have decided to send bishops from the United States to determine what happened in the Irish church.

The erosion goes on, at a quicker pace, ugly in details that keep heaping up for the world to see. The pope’s brother admits to slapping choir students who didn’t perform properly -- a human imperfection made all the more perceptible in an arena long wrapped in a façade of seeming perfection.

Meanwhile, the world outside this favored culture is beginning to realize that one of the most powerful men within it during Pope John Paul II’s papacy, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, once secretary of state and now dean of the College of Cardinals, took money from the likes of the late Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ. Maciel was a favorite of the former pope, and a man who abused his young seminarians and is accused of fathering children, including a son, whom he also allegedly repeatedly abused.

Sodano was one of Maciel’s most ardent backers.

That Sodano should be nowhere near any level of control at the Vatican is apparent to most everyone who has given this scandal the slightest thought. But there he is, still posturing, offering paeans to a beleaguered pope during liturgies, and dismissing the growing chorus of charges against fellow bishops as petty gossip.

And when one of those fellow bishops, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn of Austria, dares to call him out, as someone should, in one of the more rational comments that anyone inside the culture has yet made, Sodano is able to manipulate a meeting with Schönborn and the pope. The world is subsequently informed that such criticism is not to occur cardinal to cardinal. Such power is reserved for the pope alone. The pope remains silent and Sodano remains influential.

The protection from scrutiny previously enjoyed by the culture, a reflection more than anything of royal prerogatives and palace behavior, has disintegrated to the point where the U.S. Supreme Court gave approval for a suit that seeks to hold the Vatican responsible for the transfer of pedophile priests from place to place, transfers that occurred without warning to law enforcement bodies or to the communities involved.

The sex abuse crisis, as we’ve said in this space before, is a crisis of the clerical culture, a crisis of authority and ecclesiology. The sex abuse crisis is the awful symptom of much deeper problems.

Projection is occurring on a global scale as the bishops grasp for ways to explain how so much has gone so wrong so quickly. Relativism! Secularism! Cultural influences! All those bad things out there, they reason, are influencing the people to revolt, to backslide, to not believe as they should, to disregard the hierarchy’s rulings and pronouncements. It is the bishops who fail to recognize that they, themselves, are the best living examples of the relativism and secularism they decry.

The great irony in all of this, of course, is that the hierarchy need not thrash about wondering how to adjust their culture and lives to the demands of an educated church in the 21st century.

The great questions of this age -- and its demands for accountability and transparency -- were anticipated by the church, which began to deal with them during the Second Vatican Council, the reform gathering of the mid-1960s.

There was reason -- perhaps the Spirit responds when so many openly seek its guidance -- why the texts of that council’s documents were different from any before, why those texts are filled with notions of dialogue, of acceptance, of restraint in judgment and punishment, of the new description of church as the people of God.

Perhaps those at the council anticipated that the hierarchy of the future would have to structure itself differently, lead differently, and see the world differently.

What seems clear at this moment is that the hierarchy as it has evolved in the past half millennium is deeply damaged from within. And there is little evidence of the imagination, the creativity, the spirit, necessary to repair or rethink the structure.

The second half of 2010, it seems, may be just as disheartening to the Holy Father, just as bumpy, as the first.

Beneath the child abuse scandal

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -1000

Beneath the child abuse scandal

A.W. Richard Sipe

[We have reprinted this article from The National Catholic Reporter, 22 July 2010]

Many people, including bishops, date and lable the "Crisis in the Catholic Church" to Jan. 6, 2002 when The Boston Globe began publishing its series about sexual abuse of minors by priests and revealing the conspiracy of bishops in covering up crimes. That was the flash point of a worldwide scandal. The crisis it epitomizes is more profound.

The uncontrollable public exposure and sharp focus on clergy sex abuse shocked everyone, but the fact of a church and priesthood in crisis did not come as a surprise to the United States hierarchy. "It is clear that we are in some kind of a crisis of priestly ministry. The nature of the crisis is not at all that clear." Those were the words Daniel Pilarczyk archbishop of Cincinnati directed at his fellow bishops on June 14, 1986. He went on to provide a checklist of possibilities: "Is it a crisis of image? Is it a crisis of numbers? Is it a crisis of celibacy? -- change? -- lay ministries? -- prayer? -- secularism? -- confidence? It is probably all of these and perhaps other things as well. And we have to respond to the crisis."

Already in 1972 sociologist Fr. Andrew Greeley reported to the five bishops and the twelve priest consultants of the Ad Hoc Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry set up by the NCCB. He explained his Sociological Investigation of American Priesthood that he instigated at the request of the bishops. "There appears to be a crisis in vocations to the priesthood." His suggestions for supporting clergy development were presented in juxtaposition with the findings of Father Gene Kennedy and Doctor Victor Heckler who had been commissioned by the bishops to produce a Psychological Investigation of the priesthood in the United States.

The Kennedy-Heckler Report did not use the word crisis, but the conclusions they presented had "crisis" written all over them. They concluded that over two-thirds of priests in their representative psychological study were psychosocially either underdeveloped or mal-developed.

After more than a quarter of a century of evidence of corruption -- and if a record of 6 to 9 percent of U.S. priests having abused minors and 66 percent of bishops covering up for abusing clerics is not corruption I do not know what is -- Pope Benedict admits that "sin is in the church" and says publicly that we are facing a "cultural and spiritual crisis."

Certainly culture in the broadest sense is immersed in ungodly problems where the physical and sexual abuse of minors and women is epidemic. However, the economic, cultural, and spiritual crisis challenging societies in no way mitigates the core problem of the Catholic church today.

In the simplest and most accurate terms possible, the Catholic crisis is the widespread sexual activity of Catholic clergy publicly promised to celibacy, and a morally and doctrinally underdeveloped understanding of human sexual nature.

Without doubt many good and dedicated priests (and nuns) still serve. Pope Benedict XVI could justly say, "The priest is a gift from the heart of Christ, a gift for the church and the world. If we look at history, we can observe how many pages of authentic spiritual and social renewal have been written with the decisive contribution of Catholic priests…" That is true. There have also been, and always will be, some miscreant clergy in active ministry who do not contribute to renewal. That does not constitute a crisis. A crisis explodes when there is no longer a large enough reserve of psychologically well balanced and observant (saintly) and honest bishops and priests to counter the influence and power of corrupt and hypocritical men in power.

It is a serious mistake to assume that the pope, bishops and priests operate just like everybody else and are "just like" everybody else. Three qualities make them unique: "habits different from those of secular men, protection of the sacred, and pursual [sic] of clerical ritual." Priests are part of a culture -- a clerical culture -- that is woven into whole, if tattered, cloth by the presumption of celibacy. The celibate requirement for inclusion into the culture is of primary importance. That requirement by law involves "perfect and perpetual chastity." The presumption of clerical celibacy is the fabric of the culture; to remove celibacy as a requirement means the disintegration of the culture -- loss of the control and power of the whole authoritarian system. As medieval historian Mayke de Jong writes, "It was from sexual purity that the priesthood was believed to derive its power."

The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize the priesthood are not simply those articulated by papal pronouncements that outline the ideals and the positive accomplishments of the institution and organization. The legislation on celibacy is central to keeping clerical culture together. Catholic clerical celibacy separates a man from all other societies, makes him dependent on a homo-social group, confers status, insures employment and care, and subsumes his identity into a powerful ancient institution, and allies him with the divine. The requirement for inclusion is obedience, conformity and presumed celibacy.

Sexual activity of the widest variety is tolerated within the system if it is kept secret. Submitting sexual activity to the seal of confession is a major vehicle to solidifying the power of the culture and forming a clerical identity (too frequently pathological).

The attitudes, values, and practices of clerical culture are bound by secrecy. Sexual secrecy is the key to the clerical culture. It beats at the heart of the crisis. Currently clerical culture, on balance, is corrupt. Priests -- even good priests -- live, breath, and have their being in a culture of hypocrisy. Sexual secrecy dominates the culture from seminary training through the episcopacy to the Vatican. There is a great deal more at work in the operation of clergy and the clerical system than "passion for the Gospel" that the pope extols.

Few people want to dirty their hands with the crisis. Who from inside the clerical culture has spoken up and reported abuse? Many folks are sick of hearing about clergy abuse. Fr. James Martin, an editor of the Jesuit magazine America told The New York Times, "I don't think editors realize how tired Catholics are of seeing the church portrayed through the lens of sex abuse."

That poses the real conundrum: percolating behind the scandal of priests preying sexually on minors and vulnerable women and men only waiting to be served up steaming hot is the secret system where priests and bishops enjoy the sexual favors of willing adult women and compatible adult men; (to say nothing about pornography and masturbation). The questions about clerics' mistresses, their children, the abortions of their companions (often instigated by them) and widespread homosexual activity cannot long be ignored. A more powerful lens is waiting to focus on the clerical culture that will render the crisis in ever more precise dimensions.

Beneath the child abuse scandal is a clerical world of sexual reality. Besides avoidance and denial of that reality is a system of moral disbelief sustaining the crisis. Many priests simply do not believe a host of church moral dictums about human sexuality. A more perfect example is not possible than a top official in the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy who was caught on television in 2007 claiming he "didn't feel he was sinning" by having sex with gay men -- unless it is a monsignor acting out in his Vatican office, or a Vatican chorister in 2010 allegedly procuring male prostitutes for papal gentleman-in-waiting.

Yes, there is a major Roman Catholic crisis -- from the papal household and curia to regional and pontifical seminaries, to our neighborhood parishes, in religious communities and monasteries. The name of that crisis is sex. It is time that we all move beyond public relations to counteract the attached scandal and move to embrace what sociologist Tom Westrum calls a "fix."

[Richard Sipe is a mental health counselor and author who earlier spent 18 years as a Benedictine monk and priest.]

The Latest from 'What if We Just Said Wait?'

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -1000

What If We Just Said Wait?

The case for a grassroots review of the new Roman Missal --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Roman Missal in the News Reporting for the highly-respected British Catholic weekly, The Tablet, Rome correspondent Robert Mickens wrote on June 12, 2010 this encouraging bit of news:

THE CONTROVERSIAL new English translation of the Roman Missal, which the Vatican officially approved in its entirety last April, is actually still a work in progress and will include more changes that were never endorsed by the world’s English-speaking bishops, The Tablet has learned. “This means that the beautifully-bound English Missal that Vox Clara gave Pope Benedict at that gala luncheon last spring, to mark the recognitio (approval), was not even the finished product,” said one of several sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

It’s evident that the new translation of the Roman Missal is in serious disarray. Not only are extensive changes being made to the texts our bishops voted on (many of them reluctantly), but some English-speaking conferences of bishops have not even voted on all of the texts yet!

A sign of hope? Recently, a new translation into German of the Order of Christian Funerals (prepared according to the norms established in Liturgiam Authenticam) was rejected by German-speaking priests and bishops for pastoral reasons. Amazingly, permission has now been granted to them by the Vatican to continue using the 1973 version they were accustomed to! According to Anthony Ruff, OSB, this is the first time since the Second Vatican Council that “an officially approved book is being withdrawn because of objections to the translation, especially to the many changes Rome made in the submitted translation.”

Is it too much to hope that the same thing could happen with regard to the new English-language Missal? Clearly there is a real scramble on to complete the new translation of the Roman Missal on time.

A viable alternative? Opponents of the “What If” initiative claim that “we’ve waited long enough” for a new translation of the Missal. Apart from their aesthetic and theological objections, they argue that further delays are impracticable simply because of the amount of time, money and energy already poured into new translation. Do you agree with this? Isn’t a truly beautiful and prayerful translation more important than any of these considerations? And is it possible that such a translation already exists?

We think so. Many are unaware that ICEL's faithful and beautiful translation—15 years in the making--was approved by all the English-speaking conferences of bishops by a very wide margin, only to be rejected by the Vatican in 2002 upon the publication of Liturgiam Authenticam, which unilaterally set forth new guidelines for translation of liturgical texts. The 1998 translation, while very faithful to the Latin, avoids clumsy Latinizations ( e.g., “do not suffer, we pray, those you have redeemed,” “consubstantial with the Father”; “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”; “oblation of our service,” etc.). It is a pastorally sensitive translation, which leaves the people’s parts virtually untouched, and employs gender-inclusive language whenever possible.

You can compare all three translations (the translation currently in use, the rejected 1998 translation, and the controversial new one) by clicking here. Is the 1998 Missal the translation we have been “waiting” for? Compare the texts and decide for yourself!

It's not over till it's over Many who signed on to “What If We Just Said Wait” lost heart once the recognitio was granted by Rome (or when their bishop failed to respond constructively when they wrote to express their serious concern). In light of the above, we don’t believe this is the time to give up. Some parishes have organized, found their voice, and even signed on en masse (the Church of the Epiphany in Louisville, KY is an example; another Louisville parish, St. Agnes, published a useful series of bulletin inserts on the subject).

The official Roman Missal workshops are underway. They don’t leave much room for dialogue, but if you (or your pastor) are attending, please consider raising these issues with the leaders. And if you haven’t yet written to your bishop to express your concerns—or even if you have!— share with him these signs of hope (including the surprising reversal in the case of the German translation).

“Prayer is the greatest petition.” Please, continue to pray that the Holy Spirit will guide our Church and her leaders in the coming months! And, no, it is not too late to encourage your friends and fellow parishioners to sign on to What If We Just Said Wait!

CfM and WATAC Respond to New English in Worship

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -1000

CfM and WATAC Respond to 'New' English in Worship

Since late-2009 Catholics for Ministry and Women and the Australian Church have been working together on the new - or perhaps more precisely 'olde' - proposed English translation for use in the liturgy, particularly the Mass. Early in March 2010 the two organizations undertook the task of giving an opportunity to priests and people to respond to the proposed new English translation. The two organizations sent out to every parish in Australia Father Michael Ryan's 'What if we said Wait?' and Paul Collins pamphlet And Also With You.

The many responses, particularly from priests, were collated by WATAC and published as a pamphlet. These were sent to the priests who responded as well as to many of the Austraslian bishops.

You can find a copy of the response pamphlet And so the people Said ... immediately after this.

AND SO THE PEOPLE SAID …..

The following pages are a summary of the responses WATAC and Catholics for Ministry
received after mailing out to all Australian Catholic Parishes two articles addressing the new English translation of the Mass. The articles were:

• ‘What if we said Wait ….’ by Father Michael Ryan of St James Cathedral, Seattle USA

• ‘And Also with You’ by Paul Collins, member of Catholics for Ministry

Early in March 2010, as many of you will know, Women and the Australian Church (WATAC)
and Catholics for Ministry undertook this task so as to create an opportunity for the voice of
the people to be heard regarding their thoughts and feelings about the proposed new
English translation. The responses were many and varied and came via post, email and
telephone; but all were honest and many were passionate, and the various aspects of the
issue were addressed with intelligence, consideration and thoughtfulness.

We all owe those who responded a great debt of gratitude and our hope is that their
responses will create an even wider and on‐going dialogue among us all. When asking for
responses we assured people that whatever they wrote would be treated in confidence and
we have honoured this by omitting in this summary any references that would identify the
writer.

In organising this document we have printed it in three sections. Part I is a compilation of
the early responses; Part II is a summary of the next group of responses received mid April
to end of May and Part III addresses the longer responses/letters which explored in depth
wider issues involved with the new English translation and the processes involved with its
proposed introduction, plus the possible positive and/or negative outcomes of all this.
In November 2009, WATAC undertook a similar process with its membership and having put
together many of the responses we sent copies to many of our Bishops. If you are
interested in reading this summary of what the WATAC women think and care about
regarding the new English translation copies are still available from the WATAC office.
Writing about ‘Hope in an Age of Despair’ Albert Nolan says, “The basis of our hope is God …
What matters in the long run, though, is not only that we are hopeful but that we act
hopefully. The most valuable contribution that a Christian can make in our age of despair is
to continue, because of our faith, to act hopefully…”

Thank you for being part of the dialogue and for your total commitment.

Women and the Australian Church Catholics for Ministry

37/121 Anzac Avenue PO Box 4053
Engadine NSW 2233 Manuka ACT 26.3
Ph/Fax 02 9520 9409
email: watac@watac.net

PART I:
A COMPILATION OF PRIESTS’ RESPONSES
(THESE WERE RECEIVED BETWEEN MARCH AND EARLY APRIL AND WERE ALSO
PRINTED IN THE MAY WATAC NEWSLETTER)

What is your immediate response?

Anger, frustration, powerlessness.
*** *** *** *** ***
I have read the material supplied and I agree 100% with the sentiments expressed. If the proposed translations are rammed through I will be strongly tempted to stick with what we presently have. The Pope and Roman officials must be made to respect Episcopal collegiality.
*** *** *** *** ***
I have been hurt and angry for a long time about these changes. No inclusive language and appalling English.
*** *** *** *** ***
Great joy at the prospect of a genuine translation of the original Latin. Something I have awaited since the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass.
*** *** *** *** ***
I am frustrated and angry at the new translation. I cannot believe that they have used exclusive
language (Nicene Creed, 4th Eucharistic Prayer).
*** *** *** *** ***
Basically the changes are not necessary and won’t mean terribly much to the persons in the pews. The language used is also not in keeping with our everyday use.
*** *** *** *** ***
An unwarranted attempt to reverse the 2nd VAT Council by “the bells and smells club.”
*** *** *** *** ***
Perhaps having a more solemn form of language might even produce some good and enable peopleto move towards something that sets their minds and hearts on the spiritual, a more profoundlyfocused experience. My experience is that our liturgies sometimes can be rather bland, albeit thatsome of us attempt to bring our people into the celebration and encourage meaningful participation.Language is important but does that necessarily have to be exactly the same as “street talk”? I would argue not. Those of us who play sport are acutely aware that there are terms we use, jargon that is particular toa given context of the game. How many people really know what “silly leg” “fine point” “ruck” “fly half” “sweeper” or “guard” mean? Even my spelling check on the computer did not know one of those terms! Why should our liturgical language necessarily have to conform to everyday language, which I have already said can differ from country to country or even county to county? There are always two sides to an argument. We need to be very careful to see the whole picture, not allow ourselves to condemn something without proper discernment.
*** *** *** *** ***
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Paul Collins. This seems to be an exercise in “We have the power, we can do it; we will do it – without reference to the Church or people who speak English.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is a case of “Playing the fiddle while Rome burns”! My greatest concern about our Church today is “Where are the Women”?
*** *** *** *** ***
Huge issues! Enculturation of FAITH! Within that – LITURGY
*** *** *** *** ***
I totally agree with the conclusions drawn by Michael Ryan and Paul Collins. I want to be part of an active challenge to this “disaster in waiting” but don’t know how to go about it. I’m troubled in conscience and wonder how I can be obedient to the Bishops.
*** *** *** *** ***
Whatever the “need” for a New Translation – and there will be a need, given the volatility of English per se! The attempt to have a LATIN – English i.e. definitive English is doomed, again per se! This New Translation is not about English.
*** *** *** *** ***
The process is flawed if we expect general acceptance of the new texts. I would like to see it tested with general parishioners. The principles of translation seem to be out of touch with the language used by ordinary Australian Catholics.

Are you satisfied with the proposed changes to the English Translation of the Mass?

Yes A resounding Yes
*** *** *** *** ***
There will be contrary views on this matter. I think it is a mistake to disregard the various positions one could take or veil it with emotive or exaggerated arguments that suggest that a New English version of the Mass is to betray Vatican II; clearly it raises questions that might seem to do so on face value but one must consider the positive and negative aspects as a whole. I think that Fr Ryan offers an excellent suggestion in the title of his article; rather than make hasty assertions perhaps it would be prudent to wait and allow the various dioceses to engage in clergy preparation so that we fully understand the nature of the changes.
*** *** *** *** ***
No I do not agree:
1. The process eg. Implementation
2. Deceitfulness eg. It’s a step back to VAT 11 not forward as it claims
3. The Latin vernacular has its place but not at the cost of other languages.
4. Its unity in diversity not similarity
5. The condescending attitude of the “powers that be”
*** *** *** *** ***
As the articles show, it will be extremely difficult to sell these new translations to the people. It will be another reason for Gen x & y to dismiss the Church as irrelevant.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is an arbitrary act of aggression towards the people of God. No consultation and a translation so slavish that a sentence can go for 10 or 12 lines.
*** *** *** *** ***
Using exclusive language
*** *** *** *** ***
Exaggeration eg: I have “greatly sinned” and “with your spirit” Language is often flowery like in the Gloria (pizzazz) also I find words such as consubstantial sullied, wrought, unfeigned, ineffective quite meaningless
*** *** *** *** ***
It will drive people away from church.
*** *** *** *** ***
More time, more testing needed. Re liturgy of the WORD – there is need for a “hierarchy” of texts,
similar to hierarchy of truths of faith.
*** *** *** *** ***
Again Paul Collins has highlighted the archaic English, “And with your Spirit”. May mean something to the scripture scholar maybe!!!! It is not English for contemporary people. “Peace to men of good will”!! It is sexist and heretical. It is presuming that ‘good will’ can influence the ‘grace business’ of our ALL LOVING GOD. If it happens the same will happen as has happened to the “Novus Ordo”, Individuals will refuse to use it or will make wholesale changes. The “Temple Police” will be run off their feet!!!!
*** *** *** *** ***
• I largely agree with the interpretation of events surrounding the new translation as put
forward by Collins and by Ryan in their articles. I also generally find myself concurring
with the sentiments.
• Most practical change will impact primarily on parish clergy and leaders in parish
worshipping communities. I have decided to make this as painless and ‘fuss free’ as I
practically and pastorally can.
• The onus for implementing/educating all of the Australian Church members rests with
the Bishops who have agreed to and ‘signed off’ on these texts and translations. If they
duck their responsibility then so will I.
• I will be exercising my full and informed pastoral sense in implementing these changes in
my local parish and its communities. I presently alter/adapt mass texts to make them
more understood and pray‐able and will have to continue to do so as circumstances
demand given what I have seen/read of the new texts. This will include inserting
inclusive language wherever possible.
• Bishops in general and Australian Bishops in particular are enthralled to Rome as
previous experiences testify. Stop looking to them to lead, guide, protect, inspire or
otherwise be ‘ideal’ parent figures/models. In general, use good sense, think for oneself
and the best for the community you serve and get on with the pressing societal and
ecclesial issues.
• The abuse scandals are the best chance we’ve had in decades to ferment conversion
from secrecy to transparency and from fear to faith and loving service.
Thanks for your packet of information and the chance to reply.
*** *** *** *** ***
Exaggeration eg: I have “greatly sinned” and “with your spirit” Language is often flowery like in the Gloria (pizzazz) also I find words such as consubstantial sullied, wrought, unfeigned, ineffective quite meaningless
*** *** *** *** ***
More time, more testing needed. Re liturgy of the WORD – there is need for a “hierarchy” of texts,
similar to hierarchy of truths of faith.
*** *** *** *** ***
No. Very dissatisfied. Angry. Disillusioned. That the principle of dynamic equivalence has been given the shove. At least this attempted to relate our faith to the world today, something the new translation will not do. As a result we will lose even more parishioners as if it’s not bad enough already. The invasive interventionist means by which the original ICEL translation was dismissed is also disturbing.
*** *** *** *** ***
What concerns me is the HYPE i.e. the Current English tends to semi‐Pelaganism. The Current
English does not contain all the depth of the Latin; as if every person prior to 1962 knew,
appreciated, applauded and understood all the Latin words – especially when they were spoken
softly or inaudibly.
*** *** *** *** ***
I would like to see the translations of the prayers of the Mass freshly interpreted and some of the examples I have seen seem fine although I have seen very few. But changing the people’s responses just for the sake of it and sometimes torturously, is ridiculous. Textual integrity for the parishioners – in other words it is not our language. Can I particularly note the grave error in the Creed by leaving the word “men” in the line “For us men and our salvation”. Many parishes have deleted that sexist line years ago. It might appear in the missal but parishioners will not revert to it. However one serious problem is that it may bring deeper division in our communities as the “temple police” find new ammunition and energy to do their reporting. The liturgy which is supposed to be the coming together of the people (the communion) will become another “war zone”. What a tragedy!
*** *** *** *** ***
If WATAC has not attended the National Liturgical Conference, if WATAC has not conducted its own serious study and workshopping of the issues concerning the philosophical foundations and underpinnings of dynamic equivalence versus literal translation, if WATAC only bases its concerns of the leaflet prepared by Paul Collins and a few NCR and America articles ‐ opinion pieces, not dissertations of fact and empirical research, then I would have to ask WATAC if it is more concerned with objecting than with clarifying, ridiculing rather than affirming where affirmation is warranted and dividing rather than unifying.

Have you any other comments?

Have not “The Powers to be” got anything better to do that to dabble in trivia? For example:
1. Sharing Eucharist with other denomination.
2. More rights for the marginalised, the voiceless
3. We should be concerned about the environment; migration; violence in general in our
world.
4. The anti‐Catholic attitudes from Fundamentalism that give Catholics a bad name. “The
Powers to be” are making bad matters worse.
*** *** *** *** ***
Hopefully there will be such a negative response to the proposed new translations that Episcopal Conferences throughout the world will reclaim their God‐given authority over and above Roman Congregations and bureaucrats.
*** *** *** *** ***
As a pastor, I am at a stage where I shall not teach, push, introduce or accept the new missal.
*** *** *** *** ***
I was around at Vatican II when the Novus Ordo was imposed. Michael Ryan, Paul Collins and
Thomas Fox know full well that no one had any chance to review or criticise the language translation
which, from the start was totally inadequate and faith destroying.
*** *** *** *** ***
I know our bishops have tried to have inclusive language used, but this has not been heeded by
Rome.
*** *** *** *** ***
Will the National Council of priests take a stand against implementation of this mischievous
exercise?
*** *** *** *** ***
Yes most of this will go over people’s heads. They will take the change and do it and wonder what it’s all about. There was a lack of collegiality about it all. For dialogue to take place with church authorities the language used by Catholics for Ministry needs to be free from over emotion and cordial so as to invite dialogue.
*** *** *** *** ***
Beyond translation into English, there is the challenge of translation of Latin/English into an
Indigenous language!
*** *** *** *** ***
The proposed Latinized translation is but the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is that this Pope and his ‘bodyguards’ at the top are hell bent on putting their own spin on VAT II. Consequently
principles which were/are so precious to us have been discarded. This comes through so strongly in the way this disaster has been foisted upon us. As bad as the product is (i.e. the translation) the process is even worse.
*** *** *** *** ***
Yes I think we should use the opportunity for greater catechesis, demanding better preparation for all ministry trying to tease out ‘TAKE and DRINK’ and encourage all to participate. Thank you for these articles.
*** *** *** *** ***
It is such a fruitless exercise to use all this energy and resources to produce nothing of the genuine “vernacular” changes that are required including the eradication of sexist language and providing texts that actually reflect the prayer language of the people. There are still people starving in the world while the West (as we are the English speaking group mainly) spends millions on a far from useful outcome for the people in the pews. Indeed for many it will militate against effective celebration and evangelization.
*** *** *** *** ***
As sad as the situation is, I personally see no point in fighting a battle that just cannot be won.
A priest colleague recently pointed‐out to me that the liturgical reforms of the Council of Trent took about 200 years to be full implemented in the universal Church. Maybe the best we can do is to ask the hierarchy to take a "softly, softly" approach to the implementation of the new translation, giving parishes and communities time. I guess, too, that individual communities and priests will just continue doing what they're doing now, adapting the language of the liturgy to make it inclusive and appropriate.

PART II:

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES RECEIVED MID APRIL AND MAY

(THESE INCLUDED RESPONSES FROM PRIESTS, PASTORAL ASSISTANTS AND SOME

PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS)

RESPONSE A:
Your immediate response? Dismay, disgust and anger at the pomposity of the language.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
There is a certain simplicity to the current text –the clear agenda is to restore Roman‐ism over
Catholicism. As a priest I will not implement any of the changes but this will be mere insurrection and insubordination. Eventually the congregation will be exposed to Roman dictates and will become even more contracted and tenuous.

RESPONSE B:
Your immediate response? Let us all seek permission to use the current version, the ‘Tridentines’ have set the precedent so we would not be doing anything “new”.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Language – “Hunglish” is English spoked by Hungarians is this new language “Latish” or Latlish” Spelling – what makes American (Webster) spelling so wonderful as to be awarded Canonical
approval? The whole idea and process was flawed from the start. The bits that some people were invited to comment on had in fact been submitted to Rome before they even got to us. Paul Collins was way too polite, George Pell is not to be trusted.

RESPONSE C:
Your immediate response? Dismay and disappointment at your rather negative attitude. Further
division in an already too divided church.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Perhaps a more important question is whether I intend to get behind and support this new
translation and encourage parishioners to accept it and grow to love it. The answer to that question is YES. In the interests of fairness could not a positive critique of the new translation have been included as well as Paul Collins – rather predictable – negative critique?

RESPONSE D:
Your immediate response? There are so many other issues that are more urgent. Why is the Latin text so untouchable?
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The emphasis that liturgical language and conversational language are different genres.
We accept that people are comfortable in scientific/technological/computer genres, but we hesitate in promoting liturgical genre. The words of consecration “for many” the Gloria and Creed seem to be using a language that is more akin to Eastern rite liturgies. I hope that the catechesis period opens up for worshippers the depth of our sacramental heritage. We need to present a united front – I hope this exercise also becomes a unifying issue.

RESPONSE E:
Your immediate response? A retrograde step at best.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The new translation will have only one result – unnecessary confusion. The Catholic Church is facing
many problems at present with dwindling Mass attendance; this is not the time to introduce what amounts to be ‘cosmetic’ changes to the liturgy of the Mass and cause further complications.

RESPONSE F:
Your immediate response? One of disgust
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
That people weren’t consulted. The work of ICEL and the workers have been ignored. It seems the Vatican can ride rough shod over everyone and get away with it. Those of us in leadership positions should encourage the faithful to be aware of, listen to. feel the changes when introduced and feed the results back. Perhaps a year after the changes begin, a forthright group like yourselves could act as that resource. That’s my hope

RESPONSE G:
Your immediate response? I’m not happy with the process – we needed change and were having it before the work of ICEL got side‐lined.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Maybe some of the changes will be okay but I’m just trying to ignore it all at the moment! And will in all likelihood ignore it as far as possible when it comes out. ‘Tantum quantamus’ as they used to say.

RESPONSE H:
Your immediate response? I realise that some English translation needed to improve – but why ask us to use literal English from Latin often is does not make sense, also I like to use women and men.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The difficulty is using English that is no longer in use and the inappropriate literal translation which makes it difficult to pronounce and respond. I would like to see the committee in Rome give a literal translation of ‘Australiania’. They would have difficulty.

RESPONSE I:
Your immediate response? Anger – what an abuse of power forcing on the English speaking people of God that which they have not asked for.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
1. We were not consulted
2. What is wrong with ordinary English
3. The attempt to “reform the reform”
4. I will not say “and with your spirit”!!
5. Rome is deaf /will not listen
Something desperately needs to be done re Papal and Curial power. This arrogant, imperialistic
persona must be challenged.

RESPONSE J:
Your immediate response? My heart dropped. A feeling of “this is so unnecessary”, a loss of
something precious that we have. An anger at something imposed from the top overriding local
churches.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Cowering language. Slavish translation of the Latin into awkward English expression. Unnecessary changes rather than giving more variety of texts to use. This has become a power issue rather than pastoral/liturgical/ prayer issue. Our people today are not peasants. They are educated, intelligent and able to have and express opinions. They will not like this approach, many will be offended by it, some will cease attending Mass.

Respondent K:
Re Paul Collins' booklet on changes to liturgy: I am satisfied with the proposed changes and reject Collins' view of the matter.

RESPONSE L:
Your immediate response? The proposed changes are an attempt to wind back another
achievement eg. Vatican II which continues to be demonized as the sole cause of all the turmoil
since the 60s.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
(1)The people of God are actually satisfied with the current translation and there is no legitimate
reason for change. (2) The lack of consultation with those most affected.
(3) The return of archaic language which does not flow freely.
If I wish to continue working as a priest, I will have little option but to fall into line. However, this will be done with no enthusiasm and that lack of enthusiasm will no doubt be evident.

RESPONSE M:
Your immediate response? I agree that the laity should be able to read the proposed words and
express their greeting. For me some of those lines are shocking.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
I believe it expresses clearly and simply the Eucharistic Liturgy. All directors of Business/Health and Education Organisations involve people’s responses to proposed changes, so it smacks of Roman arrogance to just push ahead regardless.

RESPONSE N:
Your immediate response? Disappointment.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Translation of the Latin makes for a quite silly English translation – making no provision for acceptable English. As all the power rests with Rome, I doubt that opposition will amount to anything.

RESPONSE O:
Your immediate response? Priests will need to prepare how they pray the new translations. They will not be able to rush them. I think that where the language is not inclusive priests will do what they do now – improvise – they will not be slaves to the translation
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The new translations are a fuller and richer rendition as the last ones omitted large sections of the prayers. Some of the prayers are too long and convoluted. Some English words used are not suitable for 2010. Balancing the negative with the positive I think that we will not gain a lot from the new translations. The process has not been good from an Australian point of view – too narrow and too much Roman Control. But it is too late to change things. My approach is to flow with what we will have and enjoy the many improvements. Exclude the disadvantages and use pastoral common sense to bring inclusive language into the process.

RESPONSE P:
Your immediate response? I was hoping for a translation that was more poetic, musical and
beautiful, instead we get archaic, clumsy and bad English.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
1) Creed ‐ the Nicene Creed (as in the original creed) was always meant to be a communal
(we believe) expression of faith.
2) Christ died for ‘many’ rather than ‘all’ is simply heresy.
What does it say about our ecumenical relationships when we are prepared to throw out ALL THE
COMMON TEXTS OF THE VARIOUS English speaking churches?

RESPONSE Q:
Your immediate response? This new translation is old fashioned and a backward step.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Gloria: New form: “praise, bless and adore” – “You take away the sins of the world” (repeated
unnecessarily.)
Creed: New form: The use of ‘I’. When praying as a community it should be ‘We’. Further use of old fashioned language – ‘visible and invisible’, ‘begotten’ ‘consubstantial’, being the most outstanding.

RESPONSE R:
Your immediate response? Anger, disappointment, , more of the out of touch, male, clerical church.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Lack of consultation, especially with the laity and with those working in Parish life eg. Parish priests and pastoral associates. I fail to see how a change of words will bring any change of heart or change of relationship, which seems to be the claim being made by those supporting the New Translation.

RESPONSE S:
Your immediate response? I am impressed by Fr Ryan’s suggestion – it’s more constructive than the alternative of simply ignoring the new translation when it’s implemented; and more charitable.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
I was perfectly happy with the ICEL drafts of 13 years ago. The new version is distracting in its idiosyncratic style and detracts from prayerfulness of heart and mind. The existing translation can be a bit banal here & there, but what I saw of ICEL drafts seemed to address that. I wish the enormous sums spent drawing up this new translation nightmare could have been spent on helping parish priests find ways to make Mass more attractive to families, children and young people.

RESPONSE T:
Your immediate response? As usual I am disappointed that our Church leaders don't understand the art of dialogue and listening to its people in the pews.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
I feel that there are a whole lot of other issues that should be being dealt with and it won't make our people any more responsive to the Mass or anything else for that matter.
I am concerned at the movement to the far right of our priests coming out of the seminaries who are bent on taking us back to prehistoric times!!!!!! Thank you for keeping the dream alive for the few of us who still love our church and want it to be loved by all and sundry!!!! God bless.

RESPONSE U:
Your immediate response? Why is it necessary?
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The Mass is a community celebration, why change the ‘we’ to ‘I’? People are familiar with the
current wording and it doesn’t seem to me that changing it would encourage more people to attend Mass.

RESPONSE V:
Your immediate response? That I had to re‐read the text numerous times in order to
digest/understand the meaning.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
That the vocabulary/grammar make the text more removed from the general English spoken these days thus making it more difficult to relate to the meaning. Most people will attend Mass if they can relate to the ‘message’ and not everyone has the level of literacy required to interpret overly descriptive text from the past.

RESPONSE W:
Thankyou for sending out the material on the proposed new English translation of the Mass.
• I am distressed at the idea of the imposition of language which appears contrived and
extravagant in place of that which is meaningful but simple, so immediately I ask "Why?"
• From the examples I have read, the English translation appears pedantic. The new wording
seems convoluted, superfluous and the proposed language, slightly artificial. As a child I
enjoyed the mystery of Latin. It seemed enigmatic, not wholly understandable and,
therefore, intriguing. In my adult years I have grown to appreciate the simplicity of prayer in
the vernacular, understanding that dialogue with the Lord need not be verbose to be
meaningful.
• Is it change for change sake? Has the Church hierarchy knowledge that God is displeased
with our present form of prayer and thanksgiving? I understand that the translation has
been underway for some years but many will see it's introduction as a distraction from the
numerous important issues which should be of concern to the Church, which the Church in
Rome ought to be expending its thoughts and energies on. I would support a case for
"Don't" rather than "Wait"!
Many thanks for the stimulus and opportunity to comment.

RESPONSE X:
Your immediate response?
I was thrilled to read Paul Collins contribution. I agree with him.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The poor English structure of the prayers and stilted phrases. The screaming lack of consultation with the faithful. The result is a fine example of ‘verbal ballet’ as Sebastian More writes of ‘just head talk’.

RESPONSE Y:
Your immediate response? ‘Sadness’, sadness about the lack of openness, dialogue and involvement of English speaking expertise in the development of the new text for the English Missal. In works of translation, linguistic expertise should take precedence.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
From the examples of English translation that I’ve read, it is obvious that the text has emerged from non‐English speakers. The text (again of what I’ve seen) are pedantic and archaic and out of touch.
Obedience to Holy See is required in matters of Faith. Is obedience slavishly required in matters of poorly developed texts which are also poorly ‘grammar‐ed’ and lacking in real meaning for the faithful? Couldn’t we delay the implementation of the new text until further reviews are made? I certainly support the stance being presented – Wait!!!

RESPONSE Z:
Your immediate response? I am saddened by the seeming imposition of this change with little or no consultation, very few people see the need or even expressed a need for change. I think it is a backward movement.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you? I do not think that changing words makes the liturgy – The principles on which the translation are being based are very questionable – and why go back only to the 16th century as the benchmark of authentic worship? I am not enthusiastic or excited at all. I love liturgy that is prayerful, inspiring, alive and welcoming – this ‘reform of the reform’ does not reflect the Spirit of God at work in the world.
Is it possible to publish the ICEL texts prepared before 2001 I would be happy to use them!

RESPONSE Z2:
Thank you for letter and enclosures at the National Liturgical Conference in Perth one keynote
speaker, translator Mgr Bruce Harbet, said “the train is leaving the station”. The new translation is for the English speaking world and for those countries who speak English as a second language. The translation is for the whole world. Not everyone is satisfied. There are missed opportunities. The task now is to get on board and make the most of the new Missal.
The implementation resource ‘One Body One Spirit in Christ’ will be marvellous catechical tool – and it is Australian! And for the whole world too. The work on the Roman Missal is never finished – and this new edition will not be the last.

Summary of More Detailed Responses

Paul Collins

Australian priests have always been noted for their pastoral concern and their down-to-earth attitudes. The responses that WATAC and Catholics for Ministry received confirm this, but what is also worth noting is how thoughtful and intelligently critical they are.

Out of all the responses a couple of themes constantly emerge. Firstly, priests are deeply concerned about the pastoral impact this new literal translation will have on Mass-goers and more generally on the Catholic community. Many commented that the whole exercise is more about power and imposition than ministerial concern. While some thought that the more literal translation and elevated rhetoric might have a positive pastoral impact, the large majority felt that the clumsy, archaic, pseudo-sacred language will alienate more far people than it will attract. Another issue that many commented on was the non-inclusive nature of the language used and the impact this has, particularly on women. A number were also concerned that the ‘temple police’ will become active again in parishes and the Catholic ‘culture wars’ be renewed. As one priest put it ‘The liturgy which is supposed to be the coming together of the people (the communio) will become another “war zone”. What a tragedy.’

In this brief piece I want to reflect on the more detailed responses we received from priests who have a good knowledge of the background to the whole process and who had obviously given a lot of thought to the issues in play in this exercise.

A number of these priests showed real concern about ‘the many archaic words and expressions, too numerous to mention’, as one of them said. Many words and phrases seem to have been introduced ‘simply to create a “liturgical style”, which subverts the process of translation into the vernacular.’ Others were concerned that there is diversity in contemporary English usage and they questioned whether one English translation could adequately cover all Anglophones. ‘This is an arrogant assumption of power’, says one priest, ‘which should have horrified all episcopal conferences, but which seems to have been taken for granted.’ Another priest commented ‘The process is flawed if we expect general acceptance of the new texts … The principles of translation seem to be out of touch with the language used by ordinary Australians.’ He concluded: ‘It is such a fruitless exercise to use all this energy and resources to produce nothing of the genuine “vernacular” changes that are required including the eradication of sexist language and providing texts that actually reflect the prayer language of the people.’

One of the basic principles of Liturgicam authenticam (LA) was fidelity to the Latin original. However, one priest commented that the new version ‘reflects the political agenda of the [translators] who are forced to break their supposedly inflexible rule of literal translation, because … it does not suit their hidden agenda.’ He gives two examples. The first is the translation of the words praeclarum calicem in the new translation of Eucharistic Prayer (EP) I. The new translation renders this ‘precious chalice’. However, the adjective praeclarus actually means ‘very bright’, ‘very beautiful’, ‘brilliant’, ‘magnificent’. He points out that ‘Fr Barry Craig, a liturgist from Cairns diocese, demonstrated definitively in a fine article in Worship (July 2007, pp 290-313) … that all the Patristic data would favour something like “inebriating cup”.’

His second example is also from EP I. He says ‘The words omnium circumstantium literally mean “all standing around [the altar]”, reflecting the practice of earlier centuries when pews did not exist and the whole congregation did actually stand around the altar.’ However, the Latin is translated ‘all gathered here’ which is not what it means at all. A third example also concerns the Latin verb sto - which means to stand, or be stationed, or even to stand on ceremony. This priest points out that after the words of consecration in EP II the word astare - meaning to ‘stand up’ or ‘stand erect’ is translated ‘to be in your presence’. He comments that ‘the clear and venerable theology of both these prayers gives equal right to all the baptized to stand together around the altar for the liturgy of the Eucharist, and no slippery mistranslation can change that wonderful fact!’

One of the most informed and balanced responses came from a priest with high level professional qualifications in liturgy and long experience in the liturgical formation. He said that ‘I agree with much of what is written in the articles that you have included in your correspondence, especially the lack of appreciation of culture and context that comes with the erroneous notion of an “ideal” English liturgical language that is, in fact, based on Victorian era English.’ Having said that, he says ‘I do not wish to “wait”’, as Father Ryan suggests. This priest points out that the Sisters of Mercy-sponsored Frayneworks in Melbourne are preparing a ‘very professional’ interactive DVD as ‘a formation resource for the new translation’ for the whole English-speaking world. He says that the DVD looks at ‘the whole of the Eucharist, not just the changes in translation’ and emphasizes that this type of formation is very much needed.

He also addresses in some detail the problematic translation of the words pro multis in the consecration of the wine . ‘The interpretation of what this “means” and what the tradition gives us in these words is very complex - not as simple as the universal meaning of salvation given in your articles. The language of consecration in the Mass is symbolic and as such is best presented in a way that shows the inexhaustible, multi-meanings of the action of taking the cup. It is all about interpretation.’ He says the present translation ‘is just plain wrong and limiting’ and that we need to get it right this time. But the proposed translation ‘is limiting of the meaning too … It is not about force feeding “all”. We are here to persuasively invite not to sit back because Jesus has “done” for “all”.’

The basic question in this whole debate, he says, is ‘Do we need a change of translation?’ and the answer is a ‘resounding yes’. He points out there was much in the previous translation that needed to be improved, and ‘to be fair, there is a lot that is good about the new translation.’ Nevertheless the ‘huge challenge’ facing us is that ‘the translation that we have now has become part of our present Catholic culture and as such is chiseled in stone in the minds and, more importantly, the hearts of people.’ This means that the huge task that faces the church now is ‘to form people, to educate them as to “why” some of the changes are necessary.’ He points out that this didn’t happen after Vatican II. He also says that ‘some of our brothers over the last 45 years have a lot to answer for too. I have been at Eucharists that were not Eucharists as priests waffled on in a narrative that they had invented leaving out, for example, the epiclesis and anamnesis and ultimately helping, unwittingly, to lead to the changes that resulted in Liturgicam authenticam and this translation.’

He also says that we need a sense of history which will require us to wait out the current dominant ‘restorationist’ putsch. ‘History tells us that the restorationists do not win out in the end. We need them to run their course, to have their day in the sun and let the “dialectic” work.’ In other words we need to get through this period quickly, so it won’t help to try to get church authorities to ‘wait’ and put off the imposition of the new translation. He also points out that despite all the gains from the liturgical reforms of the post-Vatican II era, we have still lost so many of Generations X and Y, i.e. people up to the age of 35-40. He says that part of the problem is the ‘lack of understanding of liturgy as … thanksgiving, not entertainment, of being about communal life, not about “me”, of being about the presence of God in life always, not in a magic moment.’ He also emphasizes that formation in prayer us needed, and he hopes the proposed DVD will help in all of this. He says ‘It might take 45 years but my part in the history of it will not be wasted. I want to start now, not “wait”.’

Another priest examined in careful detail both the pragmatics and the canon law surrounding the new translation. Underlying his comments is the conviction that ‘There are always two sides to an argument. We need to be careful to see the whole picture, not to allow ourselves to condemn something without proper discernment.’

While ‘one might question the wisdom of introducing the proposed changes’ he points out that people today ‘are quite flexible and adaptive’ and are used to change. He says that ‘My experience is that our liturgies sometimes can be rather bland’ and that ‘Perhaps having a more solemn form of language might even produce some good and enable people to move towards something that sets their minds and hearts on the spiritual, a more profoundly focused experience.’ He points out that both the pope and the college of bishops have approved the changes and that ‘our church has a rather poor record with regard to being democratic … [so] why do we think in this matter there might be far-reaching consultation beyond the college of bishops? That would be rather radical.’ It is up to the bishops to consult the presbyterate and the people in their dioceses.

He also says that it is a mistake to regard the new English version as a betrayal of Vatican II. However, he says that ‘I think Fr Ryan offers an excellent suggestion in the title of his article; rather than make hasty assertions perhaps it would be prudent to wait and allow the various dioceses to engage in clergy preparation so that we fully understand the nature of the changes … [then] take it to the parishioners. This is not a form of clericalism but rather to acknowledge that this is the way our church works.’

Having conceded that the new translation is ‘poor English [in] that it literally translates the Latin text, which is not conducive to modern English’ and that ‘there is clearly going to be some opposition to … the proposed changes’, he makes the interesting observation that ‘I say proposed merely because at this time it would appear that the law has not yet been promulgated in accordance with Canon 8 §1, which requires its publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.’ This was written on 31 March 2010. Archbishop Mark Coleridge said on 3 May that the Vatican had approved the missal; presumably it has been published now in the AAS.

Several priests referred to the article by liturgical scholar and former member of ICEL, Father Tom Elich of Brisbane in Liturgy News (March 2010). This article is a splendid summary of the views held, as far as I can tell, by the vast majority of Australian priests. He says LA ‘is a poor document, an embarrassment for the Church.’ It restricts the right of bishops’ conferences to make decisions about the liturgy and gives control of the whole process to the Vatican. He points out that in the 1980s and 1990s a whole new English version was prepared by ICEL. ‘This rich version of the missal has been studiously and publicly ignored. The forthcoming translation is always compared with the text we have used for almost forty years and never with the text we should have already been using for a decade.’ He says it is amusing that some bishops involved with the new translation are now claiming to ‘understand the rich biblical allusions to be found in the liturgical texts’ when many people had discovered those treasures years ago. He refers to the criticisms of Bishop Donald Trautman of Eire, Pennsylvania saying that the new text uses ‘convoluted expressions, incomprehensible words and ungrammatical sentences in its attempt to be faithful to the Latin.’

Yet in the end Tom Elich says that ‘while I can’t pretend … we are getting lucid, poetic prayers, we should do our best to enable ‘the Church to retain its voice at prayer.’ In the same vein another priest says ‘I am resigned to the fact that it will happen, but I am not enthusiastic about it … It is an imposition from above about which there is not much I can do.’ Another priest says ‘When the dreaded days of imposition arrive I will do what I can to conform. Of course I am getting on in age, so I might have to appeal for leniency because of rapidly disappearing brain cells. I certainly won’t be saying “for the good of many”. As for “And with your Spirit”, I don’t think that will work here [his parish]. It would only provoke rude jokes about my consumption of Bundy rum. The Gloria is not too bad … We might skip the Creed. Too many Greco-Roman hang-ups.’

But it is his conclusion that really matters and it probably sums up the pastoral attitude of most Australian priests: ‘Whatever happens we will not let anything keep us from meeting Christ in the word and the sharing of the Eucharist.’ Precisely!
Canberra 1 July 2010.

Catholics for Ministry meet in Melbourne

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -1000

Catholics for Ministry meet in Melbourne

by Barry Morris

Inevitably the list of challenges facing the Australian Catholic Church - a church in crisis - would be long.

Almost 50 Catholic laity, priests and religious from around the nation, aware of the need for change, gathered in the Melbourne suburb of Malvern at the weekend. They were there to consider the challenges and to recommend practical steps to overcome them.

The catalyst for the meeting was a petition to the Australian bishops in 2007 calling for the ordination of married men and opening up discussion on the ordination of women. Petition organizers, Catholics for Ministry, were overwhelmed by the response. Almost 17,000 people signed including 15,000 parishioners after weekend Mass and 170 priests. The petition was largely ignored.

Catholics for Ministry, led by Paul Collins and Frank Purcell, decided on a follow-up meeting to plan the next steps. Collins and Purcell said they believed the church faced a kairos, a moment of both crisis and opportunity. Another image of the church was provided by the phoenix, a mythical bird which burns fiercely and arises anew from the ashes. Collins called for a practical agenda for action, tapping into the experience, knowledge and wisdom of those present.

The challenges loomed large.

The liturgy was moribund, the church too exclusive and addicted to power, there was a lack of credibility, the clergy faced an excessive workload, there was no effective decision-making or public accountability, a growing conservatism placed emphasis on external rituals and symbols. It was also felt that there was no structure to enable the people to be heard, ecclesiastical language was obtuse, parishes were seen as franchises, dioceses were too big placing stress on priests and bishops.

The church was perceived at large to be irrelevant and an unwieldy institution, the current model of priesthood was limited and unhealthy for priest and people and the Australian Church was dominated by Rome. The scandal of sexual abuse, the problems facing the parishes of South Brisbane and Redfern in Sydney were also discussed.

But it was not all negative. There was enormous sympathy for the work pressures placed on the diminishing number of priests struggling with their burden. After the Federal Government, the church was the biggest employer in the country with an infrastructure second to none. Its managers in education, health and other agencies were dedicated and efficient with thousands of these dedicated people quietly doing their jobs. It was time for the church to listen, particularly to the "unchurched" or exiled Catholics, those who felt excluded because of divorce or for their sexual orientation. There were opportunities to empower the laity and the Pope's comments on "perestroika" in the church were welcomed.

The gathering brainstormed the subjects of leadership, grass-roots movements, communication and technology, youth and the church in exile and conservative groups and fundamentalism.

One suggestion was for a national church summit to draw up a new national pastoral plan.

Some suggested that this gathering be a festival of small groups that are springing up nationwide.
Another proposal was for a web page similar to that organised by Get Up to canvas views and put pressure on church leaders when necessary.

After vigorous debate, the meeting called for a summary of issues raised in discussion and to be given the chance to prioritize those issues. It was a significant day in the life of the Australian church, but as Collins summed up: "There's still a lot of work to do." Delegates were enthusiastic about the energy and goodwill of the meeting. Perhaps the phoenix is about to burn and rise again.

Report by delegate Barry Morris of Sydney. Originally on Peter Maher.org

Vatican Secrets - Selection of Bishops

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -1000

It's a safe bet that this is a document you will have never seen. A Couple of weeks ago Catholics for Ministry came into possession of the Questionnaire that the Papal Nuncio sends out to a very select group of priests and laity seeking opinions about priests whose names are being proposed for the bishopric. First, have a read of the document which fell off the back of the proverbial truck, and then have a read of my commentary. After that you may be tempted to participate in our consultation. We're trying to draw up a document for the selection of bishops that improves on the this rather inadequate document. Here is the document:

APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE

AUSTRALIA

QUESTIONNAIRE for EPISCOPAL CANDIDATES

A- This questionnaire is "sub secreto pontificio": it must be returned to the Apostolic Nunciature with your answer.

B- Please state how long you have known the candidate and in what way you have come to know him.

I- PERSONAL

Appearance, health, application to work. Family's condition. Any predisposition to hereditary illnesses?

2- HUMAN QUALITIES

Intellectual abilities Temperament and character. Balance and Soundness of judgment. Sense of responsibility.

3 - CHRISTIAN & PRIESTLY VIRTUES

Prudence, Fairness, spirit of faith and charity. Piety: daily celebration of the Eucharist and Liturgy of the Hours. Marian devotion.

4 - BEHAVIOUR

Moral integrity. How does he relate to people and to public authorities in the exercise of his priestly ministry?

5 - CULTURAL FORMATION

Is he competent and up to date in Theology and other Ecclesiastical Sciences? General cultural attainment. Foreign languages. Works published.

6 - ORTHODOXY

Doctrinal orientation. Loyalty to the Doctrine and Magisterium of the Church. In particular: the attitude of the candidate to the Documents of the Holy See on the Ministerial Priesthood, on the Priestly Ordination of Women, on marriage, on sexual Ethics and on Social Justice. Fidelity to the genuine Tradition of the Church and commitment to the authentic renewal promoted by Vatican 11, and adherence to the "Statement of Conclusions, 1998".

7 - DISCIPLINE

Devotedness to the Holy Father, the Holy See and the Episcopal Hierarchy. Support for Priestly Celibacy and general and particular Laws of the Church. In particular: as to Liturgical and Clerical Discipline.

8 - PASTORAL EXPERIENCE AND ATTITUDES

Evangelization and Catechesis: preaching and teaching. Aptitude for public speaking. Readiness to administer the Sacraments. Promotion of Vocations. Interest in the Missions and Ecumenical activities. Formation of lay people in the Family and Social fields of apostolate: of young people, of workers, defenders of human rights?

9 - QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP

Does he have a capacity for leadership: for dialogue, for evoking and accepting collaboration, for analysis and programming, for making decisions and ensuring that they are carried through? Does he appreciate the role and collaboration of religious and lay people ( men and women )? Is he able to delegate and share responsibility? Has he shown an interest in the problems of the Universal as well as the local Church?

10 - ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY

Does he exercise due care of the Church's property? Ability in administration. Sense of justice. Readiness to enlist the help of those experienced in such affairs?

11 - PUBLIC IMAGE Has he gained the respect of his fellow clergy? Of the people and of the public authorities?

12 - GENERAL OVERVIEW

Give a comprehensive judgment on the personality of the candidate and of his suitability for the episcopate. Indicate, if affirmative, whether he is particularly suited for appointment to a residential See, or as an Auxiliary Bishop. Or for work in an urban, rural, industrial or in other social context.

13 - CONSULTATION

Please suggest the names of persons (ecclesiastic, religious, or lay) who can provide pertinent and useful information about the candidate. Please give names and addresses.

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

I- a. Full name of the candidate.

b. Date and place of birth.

c. Names of parents.

d. Was he born in lawful wedlock?

2- a. Condition of his family: religious, moral, civil, economic; bodily and mental health.

3- a. In what Seminaries and other Institutes has he studied?

b. What were the results?

c. What academic grades did he achieve?

4- a. Is-he the-author of any publications? b. If possible, indicate titles and editions.

5- a. Does he speak, or in any way know, foreign languages?

6- a. Date and place of priestly ordination.

b. Diocese or Religious Institute for which he was ordained.

c. Diocese in which he was born.

d. Diocese to which he now belongs.

e. Diocese of actual residence.

f. If a Religious, indicate the province for which he was professed and the date of profession.

Here now is my commentary:

Sub Secreto Pontificio - 'subject to pontifical secrecy'

Recently Catholics for Ministry received an unsolicited letter containing a copy of a document that the vast majority of ordinary, practicing Catholics would usually never see. Nevertheless it will have already had and will continue to have a real influence on their membership of the church and their faith lives. It is entitled 'Questionnaire for Episcopal Candidates', and it comes from the Papal Nuncio (or ambassador) in Red Hill, a rather up-market Canberra suburb. The questionnaire I received is the one which is currently in use to seek opinions from bishops, a small number of senior priests, and a very small number of carefully selected lay people seeking advice on potential candidates for ordination as bishops in Australia.

Under the heading it is marked in block letters 'SUB SECRETO PONTIFICIO' which means 'subject to pontifical secrecy'. This attempts to suggest that the recipient is bound to maintain an extremely high level of confidentiality about the contents of the document and their comments about the proposed candidate. According to one canonist it binds recipients to maintain the secrecy 'under pain of mortal sin'. However, in fact the threat is meaningless and no one takes a great deal of notice of it. The questionnaire itself says that it 'must be returned to the Apostolic Nunciature with your answer.'

Nevertheless, these kinds of documents rarely see the light of day. As far as I know the only other example in the public domain comes from Spain where a questionnaire from the papal nuncio about prospective bishops was leaked in November 2002. It is available on the excellent and helpful Women Priests Web-Page at http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/secretexam.asp .

To see where this questionnaire fits into the appointment process, it is important first of all to understand how bishops get chosen. Nowadays it is a closed, opaque process in which all power is held by the Vatican and very little by the local church. The Code of Canon Law outlines the general process in canon 377, paragraph 2: 'At least every three years the bishops of an ecclesiastical province ... are to compose in common counsel and in secret a list of presbyters ... who are suitable for the episcopacy and to send it to the Apostolic See'.

In countries like Australia the process works like this: the papal nuncio canvasses the names of priests for possible appointment and seeks the views of the local bishops (e.g. the NSW bishops or the Victorian bishops), including especially the bishop of the diocese. Selected senior priests and a few very carefully chosen lay people are also asked, usually through the questionnaire published below. A terna, a list of three names, is compiled by the nuncio. Further checks are made, and then the list is sent to the Congregation of Bishops in Rome. Another investigation is made in the Vatican where they check whether any of the priests on the terna have been reported to any Roman congregation or office for things like 'unorthodoxy', or disagreement with the prevailing Roman line on any issue, or any critical comments about the pope or the Vatican. At the end of the process the list is sent to the pope for decision. He would normally choose the priest at the top of the list.

However, this process is very modern by church history standards. Right up until the nineteenth century bishops were usually nominated by the civil ruler, or were elected by the senior priests of the diocese. At most the pope and the Vatican got a say at the end of the process. In the first millennium of church history most bishops were elected by the people of the diocese with subsequent final approval by the Metropolitan (the senior regional archbishop) and/or the pope. But as liberal democracy spread in the nineteenth century and civil governments became less interested in the appointments of bishops, Rome gradually gained complete control of the whole process so that now there are only a couple of dioceses left (in Switzerland and Austria) in which the canons of the diocese get the right to nominate three names for bishop with Rome making a choice from the canon's list.

The questionnaire from the Canberra papal nuncio is part of the local process whereby names are sorted out. Very little notice is ever taken of the diocesan community or the majority of priests, and some times even out-of-favour bishops are completely by-passed or ignored. One archbishop was told by a previous nuncio: 'I don't need to consult you; I know what you think'. A lot depends on the peculiar ecclesiastical bias of the nuncio as to what names get nominated. For instance, it was well known that Archbishop Franco Brambilla, Nuncio from 1986-98, was conservative, whereas the American Archbishop Ambrose De Paoli, nuncio from 2004-07, had far more sympathy with the pastoral orientation favored by the majority of the Australian bishops. De Paoli is known to have blocked the appointment of very reactionary priests to the episcopate in a large metropolitan diocese.

In many ways both the Spanish and Australian Questionnaires are similarly unimpressive documents. The Australian one, for instance, leave out the words 'God', 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Holy Spirit', 'hope', 'ministry', 'belief', 'spirituality', 'prayer', let alone references to fundamental statements of belief like the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, are all omitted. There is no reference whatsoever to the Bible and not a single reference, let alone a quotation, from any part of Scripture. The whole emphasis is on loyalty to the pope, the Vatican and the Holy See.

The questionnaire nowhere mentions the candidate's primary obligation to care for the diocese or to show loyalty and accountability to the priests and people of the diocese. In fact, it turns the Catholic tradition on its head. In the past the emphasis was on the bishop being primarily committed to the local church, but this is entirely omitted in the questionnaire. As a result the document is completely out of kilter with the ancient tradition of the church, in the sense that the ecclesiology of the first millennium talked about a bishop's relationship with his diocese in terms of marriage. That is why bishops could not be moved from diocese to diocese.

Looking at the questionnaire in detail: firstly it completely ignores the prospective candidate's right to privacy. For instance, in the section headed 'Personal' (1) the questionnaire asks about the candidate's family 'condition', and about any predisposition to hereditary illnesses. Any prospective employer in Australia asking for such information would be immediately challenged legally. And what does the word 'condition' refer to here: is it asking about their economic condition, or whether a brother is an alcoholic or a sister an epileptic? This is re-enforced in the section on p 2 where the questionnaire asks for 'biographical information'. It asks the respondent to describe the 'condition of his family: religious, moral, civil, economic; bodily and mental heath'. So the question has to be asked what right does the papal nuncio (a non-citizen in Australian who, as a foreigner, is here on sufferance) have to ask for such information which no Australian prospective employer would dare to ask for fear of litigation.

Another area of real concern is the section on 'Orthodoxy' (6). Here the questionnaire is slanted away from the creeds and the traditional theology of the church toward complete, myopic loyalty to the papacy and the Vatican without any theological feeling for a bishop's many other roles and functions in the church, let alone any sense of accountability toward the diocese to which he is to be appointed. Despite one mention of 'Vatican II', this account of the role of bishops is entirely rooted in the First Vatican Council (1870) and is focused completely on secondary theological issues to do with the priesthood, the ordination of women, marriage and contraception. Social justice is thrown in as a kind of optional extra. It uses terms like 'genuine tradition' and 'authentic renewal' which actually give the game away. This is the kind of rhetoric used by the Vatican to convey their idea of what Vatican II was all about. What they are trying to achieve is what they call 'a reform of the reform', but what they really mean is 'a winding back of the reform'.

The most extraordinary demand of all in the questionnaire is 'adherence to the "Statement of Conclusion, 1998"'. This rather odd document was imposed on the ambushed Australian bishops by a group of senior Vatican bureaucrats at the Synod for Oceania in October-November, 1998. Not a single one of these Vatican clerics who composed the Statement was even a natural English-speaker, let alone an Australian. Six of them were Italians, four were Latin Americans and one was German. Few of them had any pastoral experience anywhere in parishes. It is a safe bet that not a single one of them had ever visited Australia, but this did not inhibit them from informing the bishops that Australian Catholics were suffering from ‘a crisis of faith ... manifested by the rise in the number of people with no religion and the decline in church practice ... [which was due to] Australian tolerance and openness'. The bishops were told this ‘can lead to indifference, to the acceptance of any opinion or activity as long as it does not impact adversely on other people'. The document went on to assert that the Australian church was suffering from a series of crises about ‘Christology', ‘anthropology' and ‘ecclesiology', words that left most local Catholics gobsmacked. The source of these clichés about Australian Catholicism, although it was never admitted by the Vatican, was a tiny, totally unrepresentative group of local, theologically illiterate reactionaries, possibly tacitly and secretly supported by no more than a couple of Australian bishops.

The vast majority of the bishops were furious and frustrated when this totally twisted and distorted view of the church in Australia was simply forced on them at the end of the Synod. While no one pretends that Australian Catholicism is in particularly good shape, the view presented in this quite silly document is so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous. The Roman view simply does not reflect the overwhelming experience of local church leadership, let alone the vast majority of church membership. Despite the fact that they had a vast knowledge of Catholicism in this country, and were on the spot in Rome for an extended period, the Australian bishops were completely ignored. The view of a tiny group of theologically illiterate reactionaries and unaccountable, unresponsive bureaucrats prevailed.

The bishops were caught between loyalty to Rome and loyalty to the local church when they returned to a storm of protest in Australia; there was even a Four Corners programme on the issue. Most of them reacted by retreating into sullen silence. Even those who did speak out were put under pressure to shut-up by the Bishops' Conference which acted, as it so often does, as a kind of controlling ‘club' that makes sure that no one stands out or offers any form of individual leadership. It is astonishing that such a superficial and ignorant document is now made a normative prerequisite for the episcopate in Australia when the Bible, the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed are simply ignored.

The questions on discipline (7) are also quite defective. The whole focus is on the hierarchical church, canon law and 'liturgical and clerical discipline' as though nothing else mattered. Note also the reference to 'support for priestly celibacy'. No room for married priests here! Pastoral experience (8) is defined very narrowly with no sense of the breadth of the Catholic ministerial tradition. However, the discussion of leadership (9) is better, especially with the emphasis on 'dialogue', 'evoking and accepting collaboration', and delegation and sharing responsibility. It even has an emphasis on planning, something sadly missing in many Australian dioceses.

Essentially the key problem with the document is that the idea of a bishop's accountability to his diocese is completely omitted. There is a real sense in which this distorts the traditional relationship between the bishop and his diocese on the one hand and his duty to participate collegially in the government of the universal church through the college of bishops (presided over by the Bishop of Rome) on the other. The questionnaire actually reflects the ecclesiology of the First Vatican Council rather than the Second.

A final note: some weeks after Catholics for Ministry received a copy of the questionnaire we informed the present Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Lazzarotto, that we had a copy of the document and we detailed some of the criticisms that I have already outlined. Archbishop Lazzarotto replied pointing out that the questionnaire was 'one among a number of elements in the enquiry process and cannot be understood or appreciated in isolation. At an earlier stage of the process other aspects are thoroughly examined through a widespread consultation of priests, religious men and women and lay people. Obviously this includes in particular the situation of the Diocese and its particular needs.' The Archbishop goes on to day that he has been impressed 'by the very high quality of the contributions that I receive from those whom I consult.'

Catholics for Ministry appreciated the openness and courtesy of Archbishop Lazzarotto's reply, which contrasted with that of Archbishop Philip Wilson's terse reply to the 16,800 Catholics who signed the Petition last year. However, the problem remains that it is the Vatican and the Nuncio who hold all the trump cards and the process remains secretive and non-accountable. That is why we are trying to engage the Papal Nuncio and the Congregation for Bishops in Rome in a process that might lead to us all developing a better approach to the election of bishops in the Australian church. We realize that this will be a very difficult task, but we think that one way of engaging the Holy See might be to get Australian Catholics to develop an alternative to this document.

We have begun the process of trying to do this within Catholics for Ministry, but we are a tiny group and we feel the need for broader consultation. So we are approaching a number of representative Catholic bodies as well as the wider Catholic community. Specifically, what we are seeking are suggestions concerning (1) the process through which bishops ought to be appointed in Australia, and (2) what issues ought to be canvassed and emphasized in the selection process. We are deliberately leaving this fairly open so that you will feel free to suggest whatever you think is important and relevant.

You can send your response to us at PO Box 4053, Manuka. ACT. 2603 or at pco77760@bigpond.net.au. We look forward to hearing from you.

Melbourne Forum

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -1000

The Melbourne Forum - Working for a Renewed Priestly Ministry - at the Camberwell Centre on Thursday 22 November 2007 was a great success. Just over 700 people were present including about 20 protesters determined to present 'the alternative agenda'. Chaired by Bernie Bicknell (CEO Mitre 10), the speakers were Anne O'Brien, Marilyn Hatton, Terry Curtin and Paul Collins. Here are copies of the four talks:

Paul Collins' Talk

IS AUSTRALIA HEADED TOWARD A CATHOLIC CHURCH WITHOUT THE MASS AND SACRAMENTS? Talk by Paul Collins.

1. Let's start with some stories from around Australia:

Firstly the situation in the eastern part of the Archdiocese of Melbourne - and remember Melbourne is the largest and and probably best-endowed diocese in Australia.

I want to begin by quoting from a letter I received from Father Allan Mithen, the parish priest of North Ringwood. Sending in signatures for the petition he commented:

‘The urgency of these issues really struck a chord with my parishioners due to our extremely relevant local and regional circumstances. I have been PP of Holy spirit North Ringwood since June 2002. Then on 1 February this year (2007) the neighbouring parish of St Anne in Park Orchards and Saint Gerard in Warrandyte was tacked on and I became PP of both. I turned 69 in August this year. ... But that is not all! In the Maroondah/Yarra Valley Deanery we have the following situation. Mark Reynolds has the mega-parish of Mitcham on his own, regularly celebrating 5 Masses each weekend, sometimes 6! Pat Purcell is PP of Mt Evelyn plus Warburton/Yarra Glen. Julian Langridge is PP of the rapidly-growing Lilydale and as from January 2008 the parish of Healesville will be added to his portfolio. [Les Tomlinson, the Vicar General] has been appointed to the traditionally two priest parish of Croydon until a permanent appointment can be made in the new year.' (10/10/2007)

Secondly Tasmania: Take the Archdiocese of Hobart, for instance, which covers the whole of Tasmania and the Bass Strait islands. It covers an area equal to that of the Republic of Ireland.

According to the 2007-8 Catholic Directory the archdiocese has 35 diocesan priests. Only 17 of these are listed as working in parishes with the rest retired or on leave. There are also 15 religious priests working in parishes, although five of these serve at the inner-city Saint Joseph's in Hobart. The result is obvious: parishes have had to be combined, or pastoral associates, including six religious sisters and two lay women, appointed. The Tasmanian crisis was highlighted in a 5 March 2006 ABC Compass program entitled A Parish with no Priest. The program focused on the north-east coast parish of Saint Marys that had just lost it's priest: he died of a heart attack in his car driving between Masses in the parish which covered most of the east coast of Tasmania. Archbishop Adrian Doyle confessed to Compass that he had no one to replace him. ‘Since I became archbishop [in 1999] there were eighteen priests who were active ... who are no longer so. The majority of them have retired for health reasons, and there have been some deaths as well. I think it was the three deaths last year [2005] that seemed to accelerate the whole situation in a way that we probably hadn't expected or certainly hadn't planned for.' A young priest, Father Greg McGregor, aged 31, then on loan to Hobart from Sydney, put the problem succinctly: ‘A lot of our guys are in their fifties and sixties and in ten, fifteen years' time they'll be retiring. They've certainly earned it, they've worked so hard. And, I guess, as the big bubble kind of moves through to retirement and the next generation moves on, I'm really worried about what it's going to be like in the future.' Increasingly many of the smaller parishes in Tasmania have a SWAP led by a sister or layperson.

Thirdly take Father Bill Brady, MSC (PP Hughenden, Winton, Richmond: He drives 660 km every weekend for 3 Masses attended by 80 to 90 people in total. He also drives enormous distances for funerals. He put 60,000 km on his car in 18 months.

Fourthly take the diocese of Toowoomba: At first glance Toowoomba looks to be in good shape. It covers all of southern Queensland from just below the Great Dividing Range westward to the South Australian and Northern Territory borders and is almost one-and-a-half times the size of Germany. With thirty-five parishes and forty-five diocesan and nine religious priests it seems to be adequately covered, even if many rural priests have to travel enormous distances between Masses.

What is interesting about Toowoomba is that it has a clearly articulated Diocesan Pastoral Leadership Plan with a nine year span that will conclude at Easter 2014. Based on present numbers and ages of priests in the diocese Bishop William Morris shows that in 2014 the diocese will be left with fourteen priests aged between sixty-one and seventy working in parish-based ministry, and four priests between sixty-five and seventy working in diocesan ministry. That is a total of eighteen priests for the whole Toowoomba diocese with its thirty-five parishes. The situation could not be put more clearly and the reality is that this is the kind of situation that many dioceses will be facing in 2014. Bishop Morris also points out that there are other solutions ‘for ensuring that Eucharist may be celebrated' besides more and more SWAP celebrations. These are ordaining married men ‘endorsed by their local parish community, welcoming former priests back to active ministry, ordaining women and recognizing Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting church orders'.

Finally, the Diocese of Bunbury in the southern part of Western Australia. Here 68% of all the priests of the diocese are foreign born priests. There are strengths and weaknesses that go with that. But you constantly hear people speak about these priests lack of language skills and inadequate pastoral and cultural formation for ministry in Australia.

2. Father Eric Hodgens' analysis of the shortage:

(i) The simple reality is that many parts of world Catholicism are facing a sacramental and ministerial crisis due to the catastrophic drop in the number of priests and in the numbers presenting themselves for training to the priesthood. While this is not true of every country, it is certainly true of the whole of the developed Western world, including places like the Republic of Ireland, and of many parts of the developing world, as well as places like Brazil with one priest to 7000 to 8500 Catholics.

(ii) Australia is one of many countries that face an increasingly acute shortage of priests. This is shown by the statistical work of Father Eric Hodgens. His paper ‘Seminary Facts, Factors and Futures' and his articles in Online Catholics ‘An Alternative to the Priest' (Issue 28, 1 December 2004) and ‘The Bishops Last Chance' (Issue 112, 12 July 2006) demonstrate this. But the priest shortage is not a new issue that has crept up on us. Many thoughtful Catholics have warned about it since the mid-1970s but there has been an absolute refusal by church authorities to confront the issue. This amounts to a serious failure of leadership.

(iii) The median age of Australian priests is now just above sixty. Most are very over-committed, working almost seven days a week with hardly any time-off. Burn-out and mental and physical exhaustion are becoming more and more common. Recruitment is down to an all-time-low. For instance, the Melbourne seminary which serves 1,350,000 Catholics in Victoria and Tasmania has only recruited seven candidates per year for the last fifteen years. ‘To get the number of priests we need to match the present coverage we would need thirty a year', Hodgens says. Nowadays the church is ordaining about 0.15 to 0.25 priests per 100,000 Catholics each year. Hodgens comments: ‘And there is no significant sign of it increasing', despite claims of increased numbers in the Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and Neo-Catechuminate seminaries.

(iv) Hodgens also points out that the age of ordination has risen and that therefore a priest will have a shorter period of service. Until the mid-nineties men were usually ordained around age twenty-seven giving them about thirty-eight years of service to the church. The average age of ordination now is thirty-five, giving an average of thirty years of service. ‘At this rate, even if they all stay priests, the long term result will be one priest for every 13,000 in Victoria and Queensland and one for every 22,000 in NSW'. In other words about 7.5 priests per 100,000 Catholics. Hodgens says ‘That means that Melbourne with its one million plus Catholics and 220 parishes will have only 75 priests'.

(v) Overall the 2006-2007 Official Directory lists 1697 diocesan priests and 859 religious order priests serving about 5.1 million Catholics. That is about one priest for every 2000 Catholics. However, there are a number of variables that have to be taken into account. Probably only about half religious order priests serve in parishes and the totals also include retired priests, priests otherwise assigned, or on-leave from the active ministry. A reasonable guess is that there is one priest per 2800 Catholics. But even this masks the real situation because the superabundance of priests from the 1950s and 1960s are still moving through the system. But these men are now close to, at, or beyond retirement age, with many of them still working just to keep parish structures going. But within a decade or less as the present generation retires or dies the crisis point will have been reached with no solution on the horizon. Hodgens comments that ‘we will have a quarter of the number [of priests] we need in Victoria and Queensland and one sixth in New South Wales.'

3. It was in this kind of context that Frank Purcell, Anne O'Brien and I decided someone had to take the initiative. So we drew up the petition. Essentially what we are trying to do is to get the bishops to respond to and assume responsibility for their dioceses - and the needs of their diocese rather than looking over their shoulders to Rome all the time.

Paul Collins, Ph.D., Th.M., B.Rel.Std., FTCL.

Marilyn Hatton's Talk

Catholics for Ministry Public Forum: Melbourne 22 November 2007

Ordination of Catholic Women

One of my clearest and earliest memories is getting dressed in `my neatest clothes` while the rest of the house slept, and walking to early morning mass with my beloved grandmother. Like many families in post war Australia in the 40's, we were three generations living in one bustling household.

Walking to mass with my grandmother was a special time for me, I had her undivided attention ....we had confidential conversations `righting` the weekly ups and downs of the household. This coincidently put us in a reflective mood for the sermon of the day and discussion of it on the return walk.

My parents moved into their own home 18mths later and my father in his wisdom picked up on this practice, and he and I used to walk to mass mid week before he went to work and I went onto school. Again a precious time and great grounding in faith.

This faith sustained me through the many challenges and disappointments of life until the 80's, when I was driven to explore a sort of `cringe factor `I had with the church. 'The cringe factor` was best articulated as `a heavy uncomfortable feeling ..... which I didn't understand, and that I wanted to be rid of.' It was at this time that I joined Women and the australian Church (WATAC).

At the time,my husband and I had three teenagers (all attending catholic schools) and I was serving on the local parish council. At a professional level I had responsibility for progressing status of women issues in the ACT and Commonwealth governments. I was gaining a thorough understanding of the importance and complexity of ensuring women`s participation in decision-making and leadership, and was aware of dissonance between my private and public worlds.

I was embroiled in gaining an understanding of how gender oppression works.

As a trained nurse I understood the horrors of domestic violence and abuse, but claims of systemic sexism !!!!!! and questions of how women's economic dependence contributed to this, were all new concepts. I had dear husband, a good father and uncles, some who were religious, and many valued relationships with friends and work colleagues who were men. I was struggling with stepping out of the traditional gender roles and looking at them through the mirror of `equality` ...... this mirror reflected a very different concept of fairness.

I began to clearly understand how exclusiveness and inappropriate use of power and the drive for status .. worked in gender relationships and the world.

It was like coming out of a fog, understanding what this mean't required me to reframe my identity and this was a much tougher task.

Along with this understanding also came the realisation that such behaviors are so entrenched in our culture that they are often unintentional. I have been guilty of them myself and it is easy to inadvertently collude with others.

Just for a minute.....

Lets consider what we get with exclusivity....Have you ever been dismissed or excluded?

What did that moment feel like?

..... once you understand how exclusiveness and inappropriate use of power impact and are so destructive to men and women, you cannot go back and you certainly don't want to be part of it...... it's like the environmental slogan .....

When you knew.... what did you do about it?......

Amongst other things I joined Ordination for Catholic Women, shortly after Marie Louise Uhr and Zoe Hancock founded it, in 1993. OCW is a group of women and men who advocate the ordination of catholic women within a renewed ordained ministry in the Catholic Church. We believe that an ordained ministry of both women and men will make the Church spiritually richer, more open to the lives of women and men, and more able to bring God's love to our world.

We are committed

to promoting informed discussion on issues relating to ordination of women within a renewed ordained ministry in the catholic church, in the community and within the catholic church

to seeking opportunities to shape change in the church and increase the participation of women in church leadership through annual conferences, publications, media releases and public actions.

We maintain links with International organisations committed to the ordination of catholic women and we have representative on Women's Ordination Worldwide (WOW).

Such a focus all sounds pretty reasonable to people outside the catholic church. Women have proved themselves to be responsible, competent and accomplished in all walks of public life. They undertake 76% of pastoral care in our parishes and if women withdrew their labor and financial support the church would be struggling to maintain its functions.

So what is the barrier to ordaining women in the catholic church?

While present church teaching forbids the ordination of catholic women or even the discussion of it on church premises we believe an examination of the scholarly evidence indicates that there is no barrier to the ordination of catholic women!

The barriers raised by the Vatican and generally officially supported by our Australian bishops are:

scriptural barriers.......The Catholic Biblical Commission of 1967 concluded that there are no scriptural barriers to women's ordination
cannon law..... cannon law can and has been changed in the past
ordination is a privilege and not a right...... if men are privileged by ordination there is no reason why women can't be similarly privileged.....we are both baptized in Jesus Christ.

So it seems it is really about, `exclusiveness` and prejudice, and inappropriate use of power to the point of being erroneous, as the church was in the case of slavery. Coming back to my own journey though, many people who support this do so unconsciously and unintentionally, but some do so for their own purposes and there is an element of denial and dishonesty in such behavior.

What is clear, is that changing such entrenched behavior and misunderstanding in our church is going to be a mammoth task. We are all going to have to work together with our bishops with understanding and sensitivity to the position that they are coming from....but they must move forward.

OCW believes that ordination of catholic women is integral to passing on the faith

Why?.......

The sort of faith formation that I received is seldom a possibility for the children of to-day........there are several reasons of course, but an important one is that many parents and some grandparents do not have the same relationship with their faith that we had.

This is crucial when it is parents and grandparents who embed the faith in children's lives with the support of parish communities and catholic schools .

Paul and I are fortunate to belong to a parish looked after by the Dominicans. Recently after a busy week of the daily grind, we collapsed into the pew feeling battered... to leave only half an hour later grounded and restored by the Eucharist and by a wonderful short interpretation of Luke's gospel about the tax collector and the Pharisees by Father Bernard Maxwell (late 70s).

Most young parents do not have or understand the value of this support because they are divorced from a practice of their faith. Again the reasons are complex. But the ones that should concern us are:

Firstly, the image the church projects does not appeal to many, it is perceived as authoritarian, even hypocritical and lacking in understanding of the day to day challenges and difficulties people and the world face.

Secondly, in a time when young mothers are recognized and valued for their contribution to leadership in all spheres of public life, and there is such a desperate need for good leadership in the catholic church......... the church's stance on forbidding the ordination of catholic women and married men seems ignorant and lacks integrity. The next generation does not respect such behavior.

Finally, embarking on parenting at a much later age means that they have had considerable independent life experience and responsibility away from their family practices for several years before they starting to rear their own children. So as adults they don't even approach the parish communities that would support them if they do it is sometimes not helpful.

One of our catholic faith's most enduring strengths is its tradition, that is, its ability to adapt and to understand the needs of the times. This month's issue of the Catholic Women's Newsletter quotes from the excellent research Report commissioned by our Australian Catholic Bishops Woman and Man: One in Christ Jesus p.197

To hold to a notion of the unchanging nature of the Tradition would seem to counter belief in the ongoing, living reality of God's revelation in a Church. Thus to hold that the traditional ways of appreciating women's participation cannot be subject to change would seem a distorted view of the nature of the living Tradition of the Church.

The church in our times, has failed to lead responsibly. It has not made adequate provision for the pastoral care of the faithful, even though psychologically suitable celibate male candidates are almost non existent and the current priesthood is ageing and dying.

Our competitive and individualistic culture that emphasizes individual need over collective good, desperately needs a counter culture that grounds and supports people.

We have to ensure that change in the current situation is about more than simply ordaining married men and women... the church has to be more understanding of the challenges people deal with on a daily basis to serve future generations. This won't happen within the existing culture. We can't fix this with the same consciousness that created it is time to make the shift from exclusiveness to inclusiveness. We have to discern a new way of envisaging and living our faith and working together to shape a renewed priestly ministry. This in no way means doing away with formation and scholarship... it is more important than ever.

In the last weeks numerous wonderful priests have who have devoted their lives to ministry have reiterated this in response to the petition. They want reform and deserve our church projects an image of a God that beckons to people..... one that imbues a sense of inclusiveness and love, that seeks to understand and that engages and anchors future generations to walk humbly, live justly and love tenderly.

I have spoken to you of ` what and why` and I am now going to put in my bid for the `how and when'. We need your support:

We also ask you to participate in the dialogue on a renewed priestly ministry and ordination of catholic women within your parish communities with Catholics for Ministry and other progressive catholic groups. If you feel able, we invite you to join OCW by filling in one of the forms on your seat and handing it in at the door as you leave.

Finally, I want to emphasise that all of us who have the gift of faith are duty bound to lead and take responsibility to reshape our church. We need to support our bishops and work with them so that: our church projects an image of a God that beckons to people..... one that imbues a sense of inclusiveness and love, that seeks to understand and that engages and anchors future generations to walk humbly, live justly and love tenderly.

Marilyn Hatton, RN, B.App. Sci., M.Litt. (ANU)

Co-Convenor

Ordination of Catholic Women Inc.

Terry Curtin's Talk

CATHOLICS FOR MINISTRY RALLY 22 NOV 2007

I was the pastoral leader at Aspendale from 1996 to 2000. I was part of an experiment aimed at finding a way of dealing with the declining number of priests. It generated a lot of interest at the time. The "Australian" ran an article with the caption, "Bless me grandfather - Catholicism's new face." A married layperson, a grandad indeed, running a parish. In the first few weeks many people asked me, "How are things going?" I used to reply, "The roof hasn't fallen in yet." Then we had a severe storm one night and sure enough the ceiling of the church collapsed. But the parish did not collapse.

What did the Aspendale experiment tell us about renewing ministry?

The Aspendale parish community was involved in the pastoral leader experiment from the beginning. The parish spent some months in discernment because it meant they would lose their parish priest. They participated in choosing the pastoral leader. They helped prepare the commissioning liturgy. At a Sunday mass, the parishioners presented me to Archbishop Little who accepted me and prayed over me that I would be a good pastoral leader. The subsequent life of the parish was characterised by widespread involvement in all the faith activities of the parish. It was a vibrant parish. I think the message is that when you genuinely engage the community, the life of the church becomes more vigorous, ministry becomes more effective. It must be genuine engagement. In recent consultations in many dioceses around Australia, invariably a majority of responses has been that married men should be ordained Invariably the request has been rejected. Rome has decided that it is not on the agenda. What is the point of these consultations ? Little wonder that many Catholics have become cynical about surveys and consultations on how the church should plan for change. I think the call tonight is for genuine engagement between bishops priests and people. We are entitled to be listened to on all aspects of church life, including on who our leaders should be.

The Aspendale experience showed us that a married person with the right qualifications can be a good pastor in a catholic parish. This is not my assessment. That was the outcome of an independent survey of parishioners. It was also the assessment, given in writing, of the then Archbishop Pell who conducted a parish visitation during my time there. Also of Fr F Martin, my supervisor and Fr M Quigley the parish priest who followed me at Aspendale. The perceived problems usually associated with a married person being a pastor, namely that a married person cannot give the same dedication as a single celibate person, that it would be too expensive to have married pastors, they won't have the same theological and counselling skills, etc were shown not to be insurmountable. They can present some difficulties, as my wife and I discovered, but they can be dealt with. Because of the Aspendale experience there is now less reason to deny ordination to married men.

But in one way the Aspendale experiment was flawed. It was based on the notion that the pastoral role and the sacramental role could be separated. It had been suggested that if priests could be relieved of their pastoral and organisational responsibilities they would have more time for sacramental responsibilities. One priest in fact said that the Aspendale arrangement was ideal, because all he had to do was to turn up on Sunday and say mass. This idea of a priest as a person with some sort of magic power who could just be dropped in to "confect" the Eucharist, belittles the importance of the gathered community as the Body of Christ. The primary role of the priest is to build up and sustain the community that is to be a pastor. His liturgical role follows on from his pastoral role.

As pastoral leader I did have some liturgical functions, such as conducting funerals. It sometimes happened that the family of the deceased did not want a funeral mass for which of course a priest would be required, but preferred a funeral service. In one case I had visited the dying parishioner often just being present to him and his family during his last months. I prepared carefully for the funeral in consultation with the family. The liturgy included a communion service. I wore an alb. I preached a homily in which I drew on my knowledge of the family as members of the parish, as well the insights offered by our faith. I made it clear at the beginning of the service that I was not a priest and that the ceremony was not a mass. This was necessary, not so much for the parishioners who were quite clear about my lay status, but for any visitors. Nevertheless after the ceremony a lady came up to me and said "That was a lovely mass, father."

The incident illustrates the close link between pastoral leadership and sacramental leadership. It was obviously fitting that the person who was the pastor who had ministered to the dying person should also be the person who led the funeral service, not some person relatively unknown to the grieving family or to the community of which they were a part. The same goes for major sacramental functions. The pastoral leader is the one who ought to preside at the Eucharist. It is far from ideal for a relative stranger to a community to preside at the Eucharist. In the 4 years of the Aspendale experiment over 50 priests visited the parish for the weekend masses. They could not all be expected to have a feel for the life of the parish. I prepared for and attended every Sunday mass in the parish and every major liturgy, the Easter liturgies being the most important. I welcomed the visiting priest and on behalf of the community invited him to lead us our Eucharist. Note "our Eucharist" The principle agent in the celebration of the Eucharist is the gathered community in which Christ is sacramentally present.

My experience at Aspendale led me to believe that a new model of priesthood is required. The prime vocation should be the vocation of servant leadership in the faith community. Faith communities will throw up leaders. The job of the Bishop among other things should be to accept the communities proposed leaders, celibate or not, assess them and train them, and ordain them.

I spoke to Archbishop Pell about this. I said that if he were to consider ordaining married men I would be a candidate. He acknowledged there would be no doctrinal objection. But he insisted that it would never happen in his time. Why? He listed the usual practical objections referred to above. But what I detected beneath the surface was fear. Fear that the clerical structure that has pertained for centuries may come under threat. Once the door is opened for a new class of minister, a married person, or a sacramental minister appointed for a particular community or for a limited period of time, then the sort of control now exercised through the order of clerics comes under threat. Archbishop Pell fears an exodus from the ranks of celibate clergy. He fears the disappearance of a 1,000-year-old tradition. I felt sorry for him as you do for anyone who is afraid. Almost by definition it is the job of Bishops to preserve the tradition. The great tragedy in this circumstance is that by striving to preserve the tradition of clerical celibacy our leaders in Rome threaten the legacy of Jesus, they threaten the tradition of the Eucharist.

What do we say to our bishops? We say to them don't be afraid. We say meet with us and share your fears. Lets talk about them and pray about them in an atmosphere of equality as Christsfaithful. Accept us as your partners in discerning the movement of the Spirit.

Because the Spirit is moving in the world today no less that she ever has, moving especially in our hearts. People now search for personal authenticity, search for truth by looking into their own depths. Dogmatic pronouncements don't cut it anymore especially if they defy common sense such as the proposition that it is God's will that women not be priests. People now seek to draw on that well of living water springing up from deep within themselves. This is the life force Jesus promised the woman at the well. That is where we will find our true selves and our mission in life. Our mission will shape our ministry and there will be a multitude of ministries. Many will be directed to the great demands of our time such as justice and reconciliation between peoples and preservation of the earth on which we live. The church must commit to these projects, to become a servant church to them, or it will or it fade into irrelevance. It needs to become less centralized, less authoritarian, more inclusive of women and other beliefs. It needs to find new language to replace current archaic formulas of faith. Many scholars have speculated that the future of the church lies in small ecclesial communities. These smaller communities will meet in memory of Jesus Christ and break bread. Instead of a shrinking Eucharist practice, Eucharist will be celebrated much more often in many more places. Those who preside will have been trained and will have been authorised to do so because we will still need order, but they will be men and women, celibate and not celibate. And there will be lots of them because every community will provide one. There will be no shortage of vocations. There is no shortage now.

Many Australian Bishops, maybe most of them, share our concerns. But they need to do more than just hope something will happen. They need the courage to take a stand. Loyalty to Rome must not be allowed to take precedence over the faithful's right to the sacraments. If the shepherds do not feed their people they will lose them. The prophet Ezekiel put it more bluntly two and a half thousand years ago when the religious leaders of Israel were falling down on the job. "The Lord Yahweh says this: I am going to call the shepherds to account. I am going to take my flock back from them." (Ezk 34:10)

Terry Curtin,

Ezekiel 34: 2/3 Trouble for the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Shepherds ought to feed their flock.

Ezekiel 34:10 I am going to call the shepherds to account. I am going to take my flock back from them.

Anne O'Brien's Talk

Anne grew up in Essendon and was educated by the Sisters of Charity. In 1950 she entered the Sisters of St Joseph and taught in primary and secondary schools until 1971 when she returned to the lay state. During the 1970s she underwent an accelerated learning curve as Executive Secretary to the Director of the Catholic Education Office of Victoria, and as Executive Secretary to the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria.

From the 1980s Anne, unexpectedly, found herself drawn into parish work, during which time she undertook further studies in theology, psychology and education. In her parish work she practised as a Pastoral Associate and a psychologist, especially as an adult educator and a relationships educator.

Anne has been very blessed in being able to share leadership with the parish priest, Frank Martin, in both Endeavour Hills and Cheltenham. Frank recognised Anne's gifts and allowed her free rein in using them. Collaborative ministry has underpinned every aspect of her parish experience. Anne is known for her capacity to identify people's gifts and network with them to energise the community.

Anne believes that the role of the church is to create and nurture communities whose inner life is sustained by the liturgy and education, manifested in a collaborative working together to meet the needs of people - locally and beyond its borders. To assist couples who are outside the sacramental orbit of the church, Anne now practises as a Marriage Celebrant.

Twin mottoes: "I have come to serve - not to be served"; and "Come as you are." The church: a welcoming community grounded in the

God of Jesus, loving and serving where we are

I've worked for the last 25 years of my life in the parishes of Endeavour Hills and Cheltenham as a pastoral associate and a psychologist. I've had the wonderful opportunity of integrating my educational, theological and psychological insights so that I wore three hats at the one time. I speak, therefore, from first hand experience of sharing the lives of countless people in various shades of churched, unchurched and non-churched.

We're here tonight to raise awareness of the need for a "renewed priestly ministry". But we need to think more broadly than just an increase in the number of priests. There's no guarantee that the ordination of more priests - whether they're celibate, married men, married women, or single people will necessarily provide the renewal which we are crying out for - especially at grass-roots level.

When I worked with groups of parents prior to the baptism of their child, the first thing I used to say to them was: What are you doing here? Why have you asked for baptism for your child? Given the poor image of all churches and especially that of the Catholic Church, why would you want to have your child baptised in any church, let alone the Catholic Church? This would wake them up! After all, they expected me to tell them why they wanted to have their child baptised.

We would then brainstorm to discover some reasons for baptism - to give me something to base our discussion on. Well, sheepishly, someone might say: for values, morals, to get into a Catholic school, community, to get into heaven, "I want my child to have what I had". "It's always been done in our family." Sometimes Mum or Grandma would ask: how old is baby now, don't you think it's time to...

Now people perceive that there are many ways of being a good Christian, Catholic, religious person. It might be because they go to church regularly; or they do all sorts of good deeds, devote themselves to their families, are members of Rotary or St Vincent de Paul, go to church at Christmas and Easter; coach children in the various sports; are involved with refugees, or third world poverty, contribute to World Vision and so on. Many people don't experience any need to attend church.

We also know that a majority of people are celebrating their life events with rituals outside the church: their births, marriages and deaths; coming of age, renewal of vows...The church is no longer perceived as important in celebrating these life events. Why are people turning away in droves from celebrations in the Catholic Church? I'm sure that you can come up with as many reasons as I can.

Many Catholics are finding their values, morality, and spirituality through a wide variety of guides: perhaps in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism; in the Universe; in the plethora of books, which offer spiritual guidance. This trend is relegating Jesus to the status of a great prophet - however, for many, he's just one among others. He lived, he died, "he did not die into nothingness but into God."[i] Jesus gives purpose and meaning to life and death. It is God - Mystery - that is the source of our hope, meaning and way of life. For me with my Judaic-Christian genes, Jesus is the one who reveals God to me. Jesus is the embodiment of God.

The church's mission, therefore, is to offer each one of us an insight into the God of Jesus. The church must nurture this faith. It must continually challenge us with Jesus and Jesus' God. But then there is a real problem with God! Everyone has a god or several gods. Here we strike difficulties because the notions of God we were taught in our youth no longer sustain us. Perhaps we have believed that God was a superior being: "Santa Claus in the sky"; one who could make things better for us if only we prayed hard enough; one who is all-powerful, all-knowing; one who punishes wrong-doers. In the light of scientific knowledge, however, many have rejected these religious symbols but they have not had an opportunity to replace them with more meaningful concepts.

To speak about God, or the Sacred, or Mystery (the word I like to use), we have to recognise that God is beyond all words and concepts: we can't think God; but we can experience God. (We're having ourselves on, if we think we can define God.) Secondly, God is not a "being": God is a nonmaterial layer or level or dimension of reality that both permeates everything, and at the same time is more than everything.

So we need new images to help us reflect on our relationship with God. Perhaps you might ponder these images of God:

i. God is the light of which each of us is a spark
ii. God is the ocean of which each of us is a droplet
iii. God is the womb in which each of us lives

But, you might say, what has any of this God-stuff got to do with us in the 21^st century? How do I make any sense of it in my life and that of the world today? Of course, God saw our confusion and took on our humanity in the person of Jesus.

Jesus' mission was devoted to bringing about God's kingdom: Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth. So many of our fears, questions, prejudices evaporate once we take on the mind and the heart of Jesus.

At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus proclaimed his mission:

to preach good news to the poor
to proclaim release to captives
to give sight of the blind
to set the oppressed free

Pretty challenging stuff!

Jesus lived out the harsh reality of daily life with faith, hope and commitment. So if we take Jesus as our benchmark, how would we judge our families, our church, and ourselves?

Reflect on your experience of church. Does it live out Jesus' mission? For example,

Is it totally inclusive and non-judgmental; does it welcome women, men and children of all ages, status, sexual orientation, marital status? the disabled, those addicted to harmful substances, Christians and non-Christians? Is it a risk-taking community that moves outside its comfort zone? Does it have a strong commitment to social justice? To the poor and the powerless? To third world countries? Refugees?

What has all of this got to do with a renewed priestly ministry, you might ask. Well, renewal will only come about if we are faithful to the true mission of the church. Ands the true mission of the church is to proclaim Jesus' mission - through thick and thin, regardless of the price. Crucial to this renewal will be our leaders -particularly at the level of the local community.

When the corporate world, hospitals, prestigious schools and so on require a new leader, what do they do? They head hunt. They engage people whose profession it is to head hunt. They are prepared to wait months and even years in order to ensure that they have the best possible person. They want a person who is professionally and personally competent to implement the mission of the company. Especially will they want a person who is already steeped in the culture of their business. A person whose whole being pulsates with the challenge this leadership position brings.

Hugh Mackay argues in his 2007 book, Advance Australia...Where? Isn't leadership about creative thinking, and a willingness to take bold and even unpopular initiatives, to propose visions of what we might become, and to display moral courage.[ii]

The church needs to head hunt leaders who are imbued with the real mission of the church, and who have been well and truly inculturated into this mission. There is no shortage of men and women who demonstrate in their daily lives their identification with the God of Jesus, and hence with the true mission of the church.

In a recent edition of The Tablet, an English weekly, a priest made this observation of the Irish Church; his words could apply equally to the Australian Church: We were too careful, too afraid, too amenable to the wisdom of a narrow clerical world...and, let's face it, too many of us were too ambitious at a personal level to upset the clerical consensus.[iii]

Finally, Joan Chittister reminds us that Religion is not for its own sake. It is not for the sake of organization or hierarchy, social order or social status. The purpose of religion is to lead us beyond even itself to union with God...[iv] We know that people are crying out for spirituality - something our Catholic tradition has par excellence. She continues: The spiritual person is the person who sees into and under, above and beyond the fixtures and ideas of religion to the sacredness of all of life. The spiritual person is more than a denominational devotee... To spiritual people, God is every breath they breathe, every thought they think, the underlying motive of everything they do. They do not seek perfection; they seek the God who is perfect life, perfect fullness, and perfect peace.[v]

Anne O'Brien

B.A., B.Ed., B.D., M.Ed., Grad. Dip. Couns. Psych., MAPS, Ph.D., Dip. Marr.Cel.

ⁱKung, Hans (2007). The beginning of all things: science and religion, Michigan, USA: William B. Eerdmans, 205.

[ii] Mackay, Hugh (2007). Advance Australia...Where? Australia: Hatchette, 134.

[iii] Hoban, Fr Brendan, Theologian attacks over-cautious Church, quoted in The Tablet, 20 October 2007, 43. Fr Hoban was speaking at a conference in honour of Fr Enda McDonagh, Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at St Patrick's Maynooth, on the occasion of his five decades at the forefront of theological discourse in Ireland.

[iv] Chittister, Joan (2007). Welcome to the wisdom of the world: and its meaning for you. Michigan, USA: William B. Eerdmans, 30.

S[v] Ibid.