Australia and the recent Synod

/in /by

John Swann

Much has been written about the Synod held in Rome during last October. On a recent visit to Australia Christopher White (an NCR writer who was present at the Synod) made the observation that Australia had far more influence than might be expected, given that Australia has less than 0.5 per cent of the world’s Catholics.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]Why would he say that, you might ask. Well there are a number of reasons.

Firstly look at the number of Australians who attended. The Oceania contingent included ten non-bishop voting members, half of whom were from Australia:
Dr Trudy Dantis, director of the National Centre for Pastoral Research; John Lochowiak, chair of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council; Kelly Paget, Diocese of Broken Bay chancellor; Fr Sijeesh Pullenkunnel, chancellor of the Syro-Malabar Eparchy of Melbourne; and Professor Renee Kohler-Ryan, national head of philosophy and theology from the University of Notre Dame Australia.

We also sent six experts and facilitators to the synod, The Australian experts were the ACU academics Dr Sandie Cornish and Fr Ormond Rush, key Plenary Council facilitator Br Ian Cribb SJ, and member of the synod methodology commission Adjunct Professor Susan Pascoe. Divine Word missionary Fr Asaeli Raass SVD is listed as a Fijian expert but is serving in remote central Australia, while Fr Eamonn Conway, a priest of the Diocese of Tuam listed for Ireland, serves as professor of integral human development at the University of Notre Dame Australia.

In addition Australia also provided five bishops: Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP, a member of the Council of the Synod of Bishops; Archbishop Timothy Costelloe SDB, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference; Bishop Anthony Randazzo, president of the Federation of Catholic Bishops Conferences of Oceania; Archbishop Patrick O’Regan of Adelaide and Bishop Shane Mackinlay, of Sandhurst, Victoria.

The experience of the Fifth Plenary Council of Australia was seen as a key reason three Australians were part of a group of about 20 people from around the world who prepared a key document for the global Synod on Synodality – Archbishop Costelloe, Susan Pascoe and Fr Ormond Rush were part of the writing group that prepared the Instrumentum Laboris, or working document, for the Plenary Council. They were also invited to help prepare what was known as the Document for the Continental Stage.

Susan Pascoe, who was a member of the Synod’s commission on methodology, said before the Synod that people around the world had been watching Australia’s adoption of a synodal approach, especially through the Plenary Council. “We have been ahead of the pack, given that the process of spiritual conversation used for much of the Plenary Council is similar to that proposed for the discernment on the Synod in both the first stage in the local churches and for the continental stage,” she said.

During the Synod, Bishop Shane Mackinlay offered a reflection on the Plenary Council of Australia. His experience in handling the controversial issue of the role of women in the Church during the Plenary Council was referred to. Bishop Shane Mackinlay was appointed by Pope Francis to the committee which drafted the final synthesis document for the Synod on Synodality.

This was effectively a report on the Synod discussions and outlining the steps to be taken between now and the next sitting of the Synod next year. Other Australians who featured prominently in the synod process were Bishop Anthony Randazzo and Professor Renee Kohler-Ryan, being selected to join the press briefings. And then we have the more recent news that Pope Francis has appointed Perth Archbishop Timothy Costelloe SDB as a consultor of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. This appointment, announced on January 10, is in conjunction with Archbishop Costelloe’s concurrent appointments as a Member of the Preparatory Commission and as one of the nine President Delegates to the Synod.

Our Australian Church can be proud of its contribution to the Synod on Synodality.[/s2If]

Walking with, or walking away from victims of clerical child sexual abuse?

/in /by

Mick Leahy

A former Melbourne priest, Mick Leahy (STL Rome, Ph D Newcastle, Ph D Deakin) taught religious education, theology, and educational and political philosophy at secondary and tertiary level for many years before retirement. Married to Pat for 50 years, they have three children and seven grandchildren.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]The entire hierarchy, including various Popes, have apologised for the sexual abuse of children by clergy, and committed themselves to ‘walking with’ victims by providing just compensation, and appropriate counselling and pastoral care to help heal their wounds. They also pledged to establish safeguards against future abuse. These commitments were claimed to be unconditional.

Victims, however, have learnt to see these undertakings as heavily conditioned. For victims the apologies are tainted by the conditions applied to the provision of compensation and care.

Compensation, so victims are finding, is resisted and delayed for years, often until the eve of their court cases. Refusal of victims to accept the settlements offered has even been met in some dioceses with applications for a permanent stay of proceedings on the ground that the perpetrator is dead or no longer capable of defending himself. Thankfully, this is a condition likely rendered unenforceable by the High Court decision of 1/11/2023 (A High Court case gives one woman a green light to sue the Catholic Church and hope to thousands of sexual abuse survivors – ABC News).

Counselling services are also limited, for budgetary reasons, to those indicated by the church. The church’s commitment to walking with victims, in short, is conditional upon the cost of doing so not rendering it bankrupt. After all, the argument goes, the church needs to protect its finances to support its schools, parishes and other institutions needed for its mission of ‘preaching the gospel’. Victims, though afflicted, need to come to terms with these ‘reasonable’ limits on the remedies the church can offer given the need to carry on this mission.

But preaching the gospel means preaching the good news to the poor. Of all people, victims of clerical child sexual abuse are entitled to feel themselves numbered among the poor. The wounds inflicted on them never go away. For many, their lives are totally ruined. For all, the effects damage their ability to live normally. These people are entitled to ask ‘what does preaching the gospel mean if it does not mean granting what civil courts deem just compensation for their suffering?’

Bankruptcy is a secular device for preserving assets from debt collectors. If the church is serious about protecting its ability to preach the gospel, therefore, it will heed the gospel call to ‘go, sell what you have and give the proceeds to the poor, THEN come follow me’ (Lk. 18:22). Nowhere does the gospel command us to protect the church from bankruptcy.

Indeed, the imperative of seeking protection from bankruptcy derives from trust in worldly assets. But the fundamental call of the gospel is ‘to entrust one’s whole self freely to God’ (Lumen Gentium 5). The witnessing power of St Francis of Assisi’s embrace of total poverty attests the power of trust in God rather than in wealth to preach the gospel.

The unconditional commitment to walk with victims turns out to be a conditional one. Why then should victims not feel that the church is again walking away from them?

Prima facie, new safeguards offer victims at least some assurance that others will be protected from such crimes. But their zealous erection can also be a bureaucratic avoidance of responsibility for addressing the church’s cultural problems which the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Clerical Child Sexual Abuse identified as underlying these crimes.

In the safeguarding documents, culture is generally taken to mean attitudes towards the child in our institutional personnel and practices. It is never allowed to include the moral doctrines about sex that conditioned the entire Catholic community, and conferred such a powerful role in its policing on the clergy. Far less is it allowed to include the long genesis of these doctrines in the church’s history.

The church’s efforts at defining the role of sexual expression in love have proven to be dismal failures because they reflect a presumption of divine illumination in regard to that role, a presumption rendered dubious by the teaching of the church’s most revered authority, St Thomas Aquinas. St Thomas held that the natural moral law was not divinely revealed but imprinted in human nature in such a way that human reason, operating correctly, could discern its content. He held nonetheless that Original Sin had so weakened human reason that human beings required the guidance of the church in interpreting the law’s content. The law itself being accessible to human reason, the role of the church in interpreting it for human beings, even on Thomas’s teaching, can be no more than auxiliary.

But Thomas lived in the 13th century. Our understanding of human nature, moral law and Original Sin has evolved considerably since then. The doctrine of Original Sin was an ancient attempt to account for the constant presence and effect of failure in the human striving for perfection throughout history, failure which in some of its forms the biblical peoples came to conceptualise as sin. Since Vatican II, this doctrine like all others has to be reinterpreted within the evolutionary perspective accepted in Gaudium et Spes 5. In this perspective this aspect of human experience is better understood as the experience of the imperfection characteristic of our stage in the evolutionary process: we have not yet reached, and we often fail in our efforts to do so, the perfection to which God calls us. The church, being the people of God, also suffers from this historical condition: it has no hotline to heaven enabling it to bypass the requirements faced by the rest of the human race in searching for the answers to the moral questions of the day in the light of reason. The church can contribute from revelation only its Christ-sourced witness to the primacy of love in determining the answers to those questions.

If the church is serious about synodality entailing the need to listen even to sources outside its own boundaries, it will consider the findings of such authoritative bodies as Australia’s Royal Commission: Evidence we received and review of the literature and previous inquiries suggest that a combination of theological, historical, cultural and structural or organisational factors in the Catholic Church enabled child sexual abuse to occur in Catholic Church institutions in Australia and contributed to inadequate institutional responses (Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final report, book 2, p 586).

Synodal listening, the Instrumentum Laboris tells us, ‘is necessary to mark and transform all the relationships that the Christian community establishes among its members as well as with other faith communities and with society as a whole, especially towards those whose voice is most often ignored (n. 22, emphasis added). The Royal Commission listened to victims; a synodal church should listen to both.[/s2If]

Mary in Mark

/in /by

Harry Moore SM

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]A brief look by an interested amateur.

A reminder

We are all familiar with the stages of development of the Gospel.

Stage 1

Mary and Jesus had a life together at Nazareth and various other places, but in those days there was no dash-cam, no smart phones, and no CCTV so we will never know what He really said to her or what she did or didn’t actually say or do or what either of them actually looked like.

Stage 2

After Jesus died, individuals and communities selected stories to suit their purposes and told them over and over.

Stage 3

The evangelists took those stories, knocked them into some kind of chronological order and put spin on them to suit the faith needs of their intended readers. The stories as we have them in the gospels are all we have that might give us a glimpse of what really happened in Stage 1, but I doubt if they would be admissible in a modern court of law.

Time and target

The target audience for Mark’s gospel could be any Mediterranean Christian community, which had experienced persecution. Some say it could have been the Roman community after the time of Nero and the burning of Rome. It seems to have been written in the early 70’s, which would put Mary in her late 80s if she were still alive.

The mentions

Mary only gets a few real mentions in Mark. The first happens in Chapter 3. It is the “who are my mother and my brothers” story, which I think is pivotal in our understanding of Mary in the life of the early church and in our lives now. We will return to that story later, but first let us look at the other stories where she gets a mention

Chapter 6:1-3

A very ordinary family

He left that place and came to his hometown and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Jo’ses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters her with us?”

What is the author of Mark wishing to impart to the Christian community of Rome about the family of Jesus and his mother in this story? I think Mark was trying to tell them, and us, that the family of Jesus were not high flyers. They were unspectacular, solid, working people and that Mary had many children, two of whom were called James, and Jo’ses, a bit of information which will become relevant later in the story.

Chapter 15.40-41

Who were the true followers

There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Mag’daléne and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Jo’ses and Sa-lō’mē. These used to follow him and provide for him when he was in Galilee and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.

15:46-47 Then Joseph (of Arimathea) brought a linen cloth and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

So who were his true disciples who followed him in good times and in bad and didn’t desert him when danger and death showed his face” Mary Magdalene, his mother (identified here as the mother of James the younger or as the mother of Joses) and Salome (the wife of Zabedee, mother of James and John, and sister of Mary of Nazareth).

They were the ones who did the will of God and followed him to the end.

Who are my mother and my brothers?

3:20-21 Then he went home; and the crowd came together again so that they could not even eat. When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying he has gone out of his mind.

3:31-35 Then his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside asking for you. And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

Some commentators argue that this story shows that the family of Jesus had a very poor opinion of him and that he in turn did not think much of them. I struggle to find this in the text and Chapter 15 of Mark seems to me to indicate the very opposite. Jesus had already received death threats. He was now working so hard he had no time to eat or sleep. His family were worried that if they did not rescue him, by force if necessary, and take him home where he could sleep and have a decent meal he would have a complete physical and mental breakdown.

But the question as to why Mark has Jesus being rude to his mother and family still requires an explanation. I think the answer is in the context. Rome had people pouring into it from all countries of the world, many of them wanting to be followers of the Way. Now remember not long previously there had been a heated debate about prerequisites for becoming a Christian. Some insisted that it was necessary to become a Jew first before becoming a Christian. James the brother of Jesus had the final word on the subject. James and John, the first cousins of Jesus, were prominent in most of the Jesus stories. His mother and his Aunt Salome were not only his first followers but were his most courageous disciples. A person contemplating becoming a follower of Jesus could be forgiven for thinking that not only did Jewish Christians have a special place in the community, but being a blood relative of Jesus did not do you any harm either.

I think that Mark, in the “who is my family story in Chapter 3, wanted to make it perfectly clear to prospective Christians that in the Jesus Family ethnicity and blood relationship are absolutely irrelevant. So what is Mark telling the early Roman Christians about the places of Mary of Nazareth in the life of their community and in their lives as individual Christians. Well he is not telling them that the most significant thing about Mary is that she is theotokos, (mother of God) that came much later in the history of the community. What Mark has Jesus telling us is that Mary, his mother, is great, not because she is his mother, but because from her early life she listened attentively for the Word of God and by her actions kept it. She is great because she was his first and truest disciple and her quiet listening and courageous life is a worthy example for us to follow in our discipleship. Mark may also be telling the early Christians that for Mary her understanding of Jesus was a gradual process and so too will it be for them – and us.

Harking back to the “crucifixion and burial” story; why is Mary of Nazareth identified by Mark by citing two of her other children, Joses and James? Could it be an intensification of the point he is making here in the “who is my mother story”? Could it be a further clarification, albeit in an oblique way, that for the Roman Christian community blood relationship with Jesus is totaly irrelevant.

Relevance to us

The Gospels are supposed to be relevant for all cultures at all times. I have speculated about Mark’s message to the Romans, may I now speculate about the relevance of Mark’s message for us. Jesus chooses very unspectacular and ordinary people to be his disciples and indeed his family. That should be a consolation to us. All her life Mary of Nazareth struggled to understand the person and the message of her son, Jesus. So if it is good enough for her it should be good enough for us.

The first and truest disciple of Jesus, quietly observed, listened, treasured things in her heart and was content to live in a state of not understanding and misunderstanding. So again, if that is good enough for his first and truest disciple it should be good enough for us. For those who aspire to be a disciple of Jesus try following the example of his mother, listen for the word of God in all it’s forms and try to live it.[/s2If]

Clergy golf days

/in /by

Eugene McKinnon is Parish Priest of Redan and Sebastopol as well as Administrator of Linton of the Diocese of Ballarat.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]

People often ask, what keeps you going as a priest? As I approach retirement age, I muse on what has sustained and invigorated me in my priestly journey. People, appointments to difficult places, unique opportunities that somehow God has seen fit, for me to be in the right place at the right time, certainly have helped. Yes, there have been times of question and difficulty, but I am the priest today, because of a long history of involvement with other priests. As a seminarian, I saw friendship and camaraderie in the Friday night card games with the Melbourne priests.

Another constant with continuing support and company have been the Clergy Golf Days. These days, whether they be formal tournaments or just a hit have been part of my life for fifty years. Along with Gerry Prunty, we have been organising the Ballarat Day for a number of years. I reflect on many such men who with a little effort and much joy have been doing the same in their own places. Well done. One day I was playing golf with the late Tony Redden in Port Pirie. After a few holes, he commented on my golf, which to that point was poor. I rolled back history, cleared the air, and the match improved. I later spent an afternoon with Tony before his death. Many ongoing friendships have been formed.

Not all discussions on the golf course are life or death. Football, politics, priests, bishops, parishioners, and a myriad of other topics are pursued with the odd reference to one’s form or lack of it. I have been fortunate to play on many different courses, here in Victoria, but also in P.N.G, Ireland, and the States. Styles and courses may vary, but there is a constant, friendship and a bit of bull dust accompanies the round and the subsequent drink and meal afterwards.

Days and hours with such company make me rejoice at where my life is today.

[/s2If]

Reminiscences: Finance and Parish Councils

/in /by

Patrick J Flanagan is a retired priest of the Diocese of Ballarat.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]

As I understand things, Canon Law requires parishes to have a Finance Committee. Parish Councils are highly recommended, but not mandatory.

The Plenary Council has made Parish Councils obligatory in Australia, but the decrees of the Plenary Council do not come into effect until they have been rubber-stamped by some official in the Vatican bureaucracy. Which means that you and I may not live to see them become an everyday part of parish life in Australia.

Because, as things stand, the finance committee is compulsory, and the parish council is not, finance committees may be regarded as superior to parish councils. To me, this could present serious problems. A parish council may devote several meetings to decide that the parish needs a parish centre, and then find the finance committee, which has not been party to the parish council’s deliberations, vetoing it on the grounds that ‘we can’t afford it.’ That’s not theoretical. It has happened at times, and it has caused tensions.

When I had a few years of being a parish priest under my belt, I tackled this problem quite simply. The finance committee and the parish council became one body. I held meetings of the executive of the parish council weekly over lunch, and we discussed finance and other problems. The parish council met each month except January. I used to issue for parishioners a statement of receipts and expenditure at the end of each quarter. And there was an annual general meeting of parishioners, who would be invited it propose in advance items for the agenda of the AGM.

I think the arrangement worked fairly well; so I offer it for consideration by other budding pastors.

[/s2If]