An advisor at the Plenary

Francis Moloney SDB is an advisor to the Plenary Council and offers a reflection on the first session of the Plenary.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]There is no such thing as an objective evaluation of an event, a person, a text, or anything else. Each of us is radically conditioned by our “situatedness,” i.e., our location, our history, our culture, the God we believe in, our deeply held truths, and the many other realities that make each one of us unique. We bring our “baggage” to our interpretations. Evaluating the recently completed first public moment in the process of the Plenary Council of the Catholic Church in Australia is one such case. It necessarily generates a multiplicity of responses. It is too early to judge, but here is mine. 

What happened via Microsoft Teams across the week of 3–10 October 2021, began a process that will continue over the ensuing twelve months. It will lead to a second general assembly of the Council, hopefully to be held in persona, in July 2022. Only then will the Plenary Council formulate final proposals. They will be further processed through the Conference of Bishops for submission to Vatican authorities. 

Wherever one stands on the prism of possible reactions to our Plenary, it must be recognised as a major achievement in the history of the Australian Catholic Church. This is the case simply because it happened. Credit must be given where it is due. The Conference of Bishops set this process in motion. Its President, Archbishop Mark Coleridge (Brisbane), and the Vatican-appointed President of the Plenary Assembly, Archbishop Timothy Costelloe, SDB (Perth), have borne the burden. Along with their fellow-Bishops, their courage and perseverance must be acknowledged. In different ways, Mark and Tim have been both students and colleagues of mine over many years. We are intimately linked in this Church. I have been the privileged party in those relationships, and I thank them personally for their leadership at this critical stage of the history of the Australian Catholic Church. 

How the Plenary was run

Lana Turvey-Collins, the energetic, faith-filled, and optimistic driver of the whole operation has played a remarkable role. Her commitment and hard work were vital in getting the show on the road and keeping in there. I cannot take the list any further as I would need to list hundreds, but what took place over the Plenary week was a minor (?) miracle: from tech-specialists to Auslan interpreters, to those who prepared artistic presentations and musical accompaniments, to the almost 300 people who gathered day after day. Everyone deserves to be named. As someone commented recently, the Catholic population of Australia has just taken a giant step forward in its IT skills! I should also add that there must have been a lot of exhausted Catholics after Mass on Sunday, 10 October 2021. Several hours a day in front on a computer screen, negotiating various complexities, as well as challenging ideas, produces a unique form of exhaustion.

Was it worth it? Once I ask that question, my earlier remarks come into play. I can only share the fruits of my experience as an Advisor. Given the technical Latin name for “expert” (peritus), twenty Australians specialised in various disciplines were invited to provide a silent audience to the proceedings. We were not permitted to speak or intervene in any way. We could speak only when spoken to – responding to queries from the delegates or the Steering Committee. This role called for presence (not participation) at all the plenary sessions.

Readers may not be familiar with the way the Council assembly was structured. As well as a daily Eucharist, restful and creative moments of prayer, and a day dedicated to a lament over the Church’s sinfulness, there were two “working-moments:” plenary and group sessions. The opening plenary gave the opportunity for some to speak. Different visions of what the Plenary might produce were immediately in evidence. Archbishop Julian Porteous (Hobart) and Archbishop Anthony Fisher (Sydney) spoke on the need for the Catholic Church to return to what it had always been, a light bearing transcendent truths and a model of a Christian-inspired ethical lifestyle in secularised Australia. 

But they did not have it on their own. Significant lay Catholics, John Warhurst and Francis Sullivan among others, spoke vigorously on the need for the Catholic Church to accept structural and ideological change, to be a more positive presence in Australian society and culture. 

This was discouraging. We have been struggling with these two camps since the process of the reception of Vatican II began, more than 56 years ago. Surely the Plenary was our chance to leave that behind and move into another space and to another form of dialogue? Hope emerged from the afternoon group discussions. The delegates had been divided into ten groups that were to reflect upon the agenda for the Plenary. This agenda was the fruit of the lengthy process (Parishes > discussion themes > working document > agenda). Delegates had been asked to indicate interest in one or other of the agenda items (themes associated with conversion, prayer, formation, structures, governance, institutions). They did not always get what they asked for, but that experience was not widespread.

The conversation groups

From the afternoon of the first day (Sunday, 3 October) till the final session (Saturday, 9 October), the work of the groups coloured everything. The plenary sessions were shaped by reports from the groups, responding to the agenda issues, followed by written and spontaneous reactions from the delegates. Although not immediate, to an outsider looking on (an Advisor who did not attend a group), “another space and another form of dialogue” slowly emerged. 

The dialogue gradually lost its tense partisan character as genuine respect and openness to other peoples’ views produced deeper and more respectful interventions. By the time we arrived at the final day, it appeared to me that genuine growth was taking place among us all. Many of the interventions called for “conversion” (metanoia), and that appeared to be happening. The final plenary sessions of Saturday 9 October enabled the groups to begin the formulation of possible proposals that can be taken forward across the next 12 months. There were some encouraging and exciting suggestions.

Don’t get me wrong; differences continued. For example, the suggestion that the Plenary endorse the work of the International Theological Commission to the Holy See (2002: From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles) and Pope Francis’ commission to study the possibility of the ordination of women to the Diaconate (established 2020) was regarded by some as “against the teaching of the Church.” 

This is not the case, but that is what many think. They fear that it would open the door to the ordination of women to the Priesthood. But the group was looking at better ways to involve the charisms of women in the governance of the Church. Given the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church’s “governance,” is it possible to admit women into that hierarchy of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon?

This is but one example of the depth and quality of the closing sessions, one among many. But it allows me to share my prejudices. The discussions in the groups, and then in the plenary, went ahead largely ignorant of what the Scriptures, the Liturgy, and the Magisterium might have said, and is saying, about certain issues. There are 20 Advisors listening to hours and hours of sometimes-uninformed discussions. Mission, kingdom of God, and a Christ-centred community are key themes for the Plenary. These themes were thrown around by 280 people, and there were probably 280 different understandings of what “kingdom,” “mission” and “Christ-centred” might mean. I sensed the truth of the words of Pope Francis, in his Apostolic Letter, Devotion to sacred Scripture, issued to mark the sixteen hundredth anniversary of the death of St Jerome (30 September 2020): “One of the problems we face today, not only in religion, is illiteracy: the hermeneutic skills that make us credible interpreters and translators of our own cultural tradition are in short supply.”

The role of the advisors

Fortunately, Richard Lennan, a significant Australian theologian currently teaching in Boston, was asked to deliver a short reflection on the meaning of “mission.” It was outstanding and served as a guide for further discussion. But what does “the kingdom of God” mean in the teaching of Jesus and in the Gospels? How has it been used in the Church for 2000 years? Would it be helpful to have some guidance on the Pauline notion of the Christ-Christian relationship that lies at the heart of the Pauline Gospel? Brendan Byrne, SJ (Melbourne) might be able to help. How formative should the teaching of Vatican II be? 

We should not only be looking forward to the Synod on synodality, but also back to the watershed of Vatican II. Ormond Rush (Brisbane) is a world authority on the shaping, formulation, and reception of Vatican II. The list could go on. In the past 12 months both Brendan and Ormond have published epoch-making, internationally acclaimed, books on these issues.

One of the unexpected by-products of the process was a Microsoft Teams meeting of the Advisors every day. That was a rare moment for the 20 of us (all Australian Catholics). We share very little from our various busy lives in different locations of this vast continent. Expertly shepherded by James McEvoy (Adelaide) it was wonderful to articulate our thoughts with one of the Bishops from the Steering Committee. Most days Bishop Shane Mackinlay (Sandhurst) was with us, and on the final day Archbishop Mark Coleridge shared time with us. We were all encouraged by the confidence the bishops have in their “Advisors.” We trust that we will be able to play a more significant role as the Plenary unfolds. Proposals will emerge from the delegates that will eventually be shaped into a document that will serve as the agenda for the July 2022 meeting. 

A member of the writing committee is also an Advisor: Sandie Cornish (Sydney). Hopefully, we will be able to take what comes from the delegates, and – always subordinate to their agenda – help shape a document for debate in July 2022 that is theologically balanced and sound.

Where to next

The first session of the Plenary Council must be regarded as a success. As I have indicated, it will not have left everyone happy. There are some (including myself) who formulated proposals that did not make the cut. Too bad! There is something good going on here, and the Holy Spirit was in evidence as the week unfolded. In the hard slog there were powerful moments: the impassioned interventions of three young women asking that their voices be heard in a future Australian Church, the tears of another young woman asking that we attend to the ecological condition of our common home before it is too late. 

They were but a sample of the remarkable and steady voice of articulate women. Their qualified and committed presence to a future Australian Church in which women play a significant role remains with me as one of the outstanding features of our week together. 

Those of us who know Archbishop Mark Coleridge well are aware that he is never short of a word. What is more, Mark regularly utters le mot juste. He gets it right! His closing words to the group of Advisors on Saturday 9 October were: “This Council is about change … or it is about nothing.”

The Australian Church is being summoned, not without pain, to go elsewhere. The first meeting of the Plenary Council in October 2021 was not perfect. But it was a good start for the journey into July 2022.[/s2If]