Resurfacing ideas for Plenary Council 2020

Rose Marie Crowe, Ormond, Victoria, has attended a few plenary councils and offers some of that experience from a lay woman’s perspective as we move toward another plenary council. Could some of the ideas rejected then be re-cycled now?[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]

An invitation

The invitation for “all voices” to be heard in preparation for the anticipated Plenary Council is welcome news. Addressing a group of the council’s conveners, Msgr John Render stated: “There is great spiritual beauty when everyone is invited through the consultative process.”

I have experienced this spiritual beauty. First, as a delegate to another Plenary Council, A Call to Action, convened by Cardinal Deardin in 1976 in the US, in celebration of its bicentennial. Secondly, when I attended a meeting of the Wagga Wagga diocesan pastoral council in Albury, when Francis Carroll was bishop. What occurred was a palpable sense that people were empowered to pray, deliberate and make decisions as Church.

Both of these endeavours were short-lived; other voices drowned them out. The spirit of those councils went underground- as did the promise of Vatican II, gestating until a more propitious time. Pope Francis has now called for two of its teachings to be resurrected: “collegiality and subsidiarity, which means giving bishops and lay people much more freedom for initiatives favouring the Gospel.” (Editorial, The Tablet, 30 September 2017). Elsewhere, Pope Francis has asked us to think imaginatively. 

Calls for reform

So far, reforms being called for have been largely with reference to ‘governance’ failures in the Church:  distribution of power, selection of bishops, leadership, accountability, transparency, inclusion of women, authoritarianism, careerism, pomp, celibacy, priestly formation, pastoral plans, diocesan reports, canon law. All are issues of significance, but they are symptoms only of a deeper malaise. None of them addresses the core problem: what Francis Sullivan, spokesperson for the Church in the Royal Commission into Child Abuse, sorrowfully called, ‘the hollowness at the heart of the Church’.

Chilling words, indeed. What is the reason for this aching void within our Church? How did we become identified with the abuse of children? Why are the numbers of priests and religious dying out? Why are parishes being amalgamated into empty mega-enclaves that make community impossible? Why is the Eucharist becoming scarcer everywhere? Why are people voting with their feet and leaving the Church in droves? Fifty years after Vatican II, why is change not happening? Where are the people?

We have to acknowledge that even when the churches were full, abuses were taking place. There was an emphasis on individual piety and individual sins rather than communal responsibility; on rules and regulations rather than spirituality; on condemnation and guilt rather than compassion. We were operating as if Jesus had founded an institution with levels of power that had nothing to do with his agenda, which was to create a universal community of justice, mercy and peace; to see God’s reign come on earth.

Today we ponder: Was this an impossible dream? The world is in crisis. How on earth can universal peace and justice come about?  Yet, all the while, we have had in our own hands a sure formula for Jesus’ hopes to come true.

A fool-proof way 

Jesus’ plan was simplicity itself. We find it in Matthew 18: 19-20: I tell you this: if two of you on earth agree to ask anything at all,
it will be granted to you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three meet in my name, I am there with them.

Two or three: Who? Jesus was not talking to the chief priests and leaders of the people. He was talking to little people, those classified as sinners, dispossessed and powerless. Ordinary women and men like us. No big crowds, just more than one.

Meet in his name: Coming together in order to listen to him and learn from him what it is we have to do. But for two thousand years, the Word has been denied us. At first, people were illiterate. Then the bible was in Latin and could not be understood. Then, when it was translated, we were told that it was too dangerous for us it read it on our own; it had to be interpreted for us. Jesus, on the other hand, expected us to have access to his words.

Agree on anything at all: We are often told that the Church is not a democracy. But Jesus said that we are, in fact, empowered to come to an agreement and make decisions in his name; that is to say, in the name of love and compassion. We are not to be relegated to the bottom as an afterthought in every list of Church membership: bishops, clergy, religious… and laypeople. Soon there may be no bishops, clergy or religious. So it falls on us, after all.

It will be accomplished. That’s a promise. Good News!

Putting it into practice 

For forty years. I have participated in faith groups such as described. We meet in our homes for one hour weekly. Starting with two or three, eventually the group grows so large that we have to split into two or more. Sad to be separated, we realise that we are not dividing, but multiplying.

The groups are ecumenical. We use the readings for the coming Sunday, as they are readily available, and are shared by Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Churches. We do not use pre-fabricated questions or promptings, though appropriate commentaries are helpful. We reflect directly and prayerfully on the Word, applying it to our life experience and our communal responsibility for service. Reciting chapter and verse is not the point. Nor is taking each verse literally. It is necessary, when accessing Scripture, to explore the meaning beneath the metaphor, to balance every text in light of Jesus’ one and only rule of love. Common sense is
the watchword.

Over the years, we have developed an order in which we do the readings: 1) starting with the Gospel gives us an anchor for our deliberations; 2) the first reading highlights the historical continuity of our faith; 3) the second reading often brings the dynamic message of the day to our present reality; 4) the psalm is then shared in thanksgiving; and 5) the Lord’s prayer makes his heart-felt vision our own. Beginning and ending the session with reflective music seals the encounter with a sense of peace.

Invariably, we discover that something
new happens: texts, when read on our own, reveal a modicum of understanding; but when studied with another, the bread of the Word is broken open. “Liberating! Life-giving! Exhilarating!” This is our grateful reaction after every session. Love grows for one another, joy fills our hearts and we are energised in our commitment to spread love, however humbly we live out our daily duties. We have a sure sense that the blessing we have received reaches out to the whole world. The words of Paul, in the oldest book of the New Testament, come alive: We know, brothers and sisters, beloved by God, that God has chosen you, because when we brought the Good News to you, it came not as words, but as power and as the Holy Spirit and as utter conviction. (Thessalonians 1:4-5)

There is only one thing missing: we do not consecrate bread to be shared. But if we could, is this not the very definition of Eucharist?

Imagine…

Taking up the challenge that Pope Francis sets us to think imaginatively about the obligation for renewal in the Church, let us imagine what would happen if Jesus’ blueprint were to be promulgated all over the  universal Church.

We can envision small home-based Eucharistic groups, with the leadership rotated so that men and women – married or single – can take turns presiding at the weekly celebration. It would not be a paid position; people would keep their jobs and their homes in the wider community, eliminating the need for large property holdings. It would obviate, also, the tendency to build little empires. Periodically, all the groups in a locality would gather in a joint celebration to get a sense of the universality of the Church.

The Eucharist would be multiplied exponentially! Multitudes of people would be enabled to deepen their faith through shared reflection of the Good News, learning what their obligations are as adult Christians serving the world at large. Imagine, as well, a universal chorus of small groups linking us to one another. Love would flourish and justice and peace would grow from the bottom up, from a tiny seed, into ‘a tree sheltering all the birds of the air.’ (Matthew 13: 31-32).

I submitted this scheme at the Plenary Council in 1976. It passed through all the phases of deliberation and was ratified in the General Assembly, along with many progressive suggestions. At the conclusion, it was a cause for celebration.

The bishops who had not attended the Council immediately condemned all our recommendations, declaring that they were heretical and the work of radical extremists who had somehow infiltrated. However, small groups continued to gather in the name of A Call to Action. In some dioceses they were excommunicated and forbidden to function. Until now.

The time is ripe. 

Old structures are falling away so that a new dynamic can give us life, one in which we are called to participate. People are inter-connected world-wide as never before. Our inherent goodness is becoming mobilised in active resistance to the hatred, bigotry, misogyny, fear and greed that subjugate and despoil God’s beautiful creation. The Church can embody and affirm these efforts. The potential is for us to begin to see that we are destined to form one community, the one family of God. And that we have the mandate and the means to make it happen.

So ours is not so much a task of reforming the Church for its own sake, as it is that of recognising that people everywhere, in their everyday lives, are spreading love; the Church – a billion strong – assisting in the Spirit-driven movement toward the reign of God on earth.

The people were here all the time.

When humankind realises its power as community, it will be a quantum leap greater than the dawn of reason.
Teilhard de Chardin SJ.[/s2If]

The future of the Australian Priesthood

Vincent Long Van Nguyen OFMConv.

This reflection on the priesthood in the light of the Royal Commission was delivered by Bishop Vincent Long Van Nguyen OFMConv at the Manly Reunion gathering held at Dooleys Lidcombe Catholic Club, Lidcombe on 30 August, 2017. He calls out the trappings of clericalism and claims the space of servant-leadership for the future of the priesthood.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]Thank you for this opportunity to share with you some of my reflections on the future of the priesthood in Australia. I am conscious that I am a kind of Johnny-come-lately rather than a native born Australian and that many of you here have a breadth of pastoral experience far richer and deeper than mine. Nor do I claim to have better knowledge of this subject. For I am yet to feel any ontological advantage of my episcopacy!

There is a story about a black preacher who came back to his poor Afro-American neighbourhood church after earning a degree at Harvard. He tries to show off his newly acquired knowledge by using very sophisticated language. He begins by saying: ‘Brothers and sisters, I sense in this congregation a certain existential angst’. The people nod their heads partly in approval and partly in bewilderment. ‘Right on, brother’ they mutter. Then he continues: ‘I see this is caused by a deep seated phenomenological challenge’. ‘Talk about it’ they urge him. So he goes on ‘And at the bottom of this there is an eschatological depression’. At this point, an old lady at the back gets up and shouts: ‘Reverend honey! You’d better put those damned cookies on the lower shelf’.

Well, you won’t have to reach for my cookies. I just hope they are worth sharing. Thus, I offer my reflections mindful of my limitations and hopeful of your enrichment.

What a strange time we Catholic clergy are living in! On the one hand, we know we are in a big mess. We are up the proverbial creek without the paddle. We bear the brunt of public anger and distrust in the wake of the sexual abuse crisis. It is one of the hardest times to be a priest. Yet paradoxically, it is also one of the most exciting times that we, as ministers and messengers of the Gospel, are privileged to live and to make it known to others. It is precisely in this Kairos that we are given the unique opportunity to accompany our people in a spiritual exodus that I believe will lead to a new dawn for the church.

When Pope Francis appeared on the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome after the conclave, it came as a shock and a welcome sign to us. He eschewed the usual trappings; he introduced himself as ‘bishop of Rome’ and – surprisingly or prophetically – he bowed and asked the people for their blessing. The image of the Pope bowing in silence before the euphoric, then hushed, crowd at St Peter’s Square was truly the prophetic sign of the century! It signalled not just a new papal style but a whole new era for the church. With that humble gesture, the Pope exemplified a model of ministry which would correspond with the signs of the times, the needs of the people and the creative power of the Spirit. It signalled that the time had come to set aside old wineskins and reach for new. Pope Francis would later say that we are not simply living in an era of change but in a change of era.

By this, I think, he means we cannot go on the way we have, because the ground under our feet has shifted. There needs to be an attitudinal change at every level, a conversion of mind and heart that conforms us to the spirit of the Gospel, a new wine in new wineskins, not a merely cosmetic change or worse a retreat into restorationism.

Reclaiming Servant-Leadership

There is often a disconnect between who we claim to be and how people see us. Perhaps nowhere is this perceived disconnect more obvious, than in the idea of the priest being the icon of Jesus, the Humble Servant.

I recall an occasion where my parish priest came across not as a humble servant but more like a feudal lord. It was my experience of First Reconciliation. We lined up on both sides of the confessional and waited nervously for our turns. I had rehearsed my sins a dozen times, with the help of my fellow penitents. And yet, when I knelt down to confess, in that dark confessional box, I could not utter a word. I was stupefied by a gripping fear. Unimpressed by my silence, the priest promptly got out of his seat, and dragging me by the ear, placed me at the end of the line. For good measure, he even gave me a slap on the face before storming back to his seat. We were in awe of his unfettered power.

In Australia, the priesthood no longer enjoys the prestige and the power it once had. For a lot of young people, it is no longer surrounded with the aura of mystique and fascination. However, this loss of prestige does not always mean that we are seen as icons of Jesus, the Humble Servant. To truly reclaim this essential quality of the priesthood, we must go to the heart of what it means to be a servant-leader.

The servant leadership model is much more than what we do to the people. It is indicative of who we are as humble and vulnerable servants in the likeness of Christ who came to serve and to give his own life for others. Hence, it is a way of being – a modus vivendi before it can be translated into a way of doing – a modus operandi. We, Christian leaders, today are more than ever before challenged to embrace the journey of self-emptying and powerlessness that lies at the heart of the Gospel.

So much of what is wrong with the church today stems from a travesty of Christian leadership and service. As far as I am concerned, the sexual abuse crisis is only the tip of the iceberg. Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, rightly observes, that we can no longer limit our blame to the individuals who offended. We must also look for factors within the very culture of the Church that have contributed to the sexual abuse crisis. We need to explore the deeper issues that lie underneath this phenomenon. Unless we have the courage to see how far we have drifted from the vision of Jesus, unless we are prepared to go beyond the symptoms and explore the deeper issues that lurk behind the surface, unless we genuinely repent of our sins and face up to the task of reclaiming the innocence and powerlessness of the servant-leader, we will have failed the test of our integrity, discipleship and mission.

When privilege, power and dominance are more evident than love, humility and servant-hood in the church, then the very Gospel of the servant Jesus is at risk. What we need to reclaim for the church forcefully and unequivocally is the notion of diakonia. To this end, we as leaders need to manifest the diakonia of Christ in who we are and what we do. Until we have reclaimed diakonia, the church will be less than what Christ intends it to be.

It seems to me that we need to recover this fundamental intuition of the Gospel in the face of the human struggle for power, strength and the desire to dominate and control. The church can only be faithful to its mission when it embraces fully and unequivocally the journey into the divine vulnerability. It can only be the conduit of compassion and speak the language of hope to a broken humanity when it truly personifies powerlessness and stands where Christ once stood, that is, firmly on the side of the outcast and the most vulnerable.

Having the smell of the sheep

Pope Francis constantly calls us to move beyond the security of status quo and take the risk of going to the peripheries. The church must be the church of the poor and for the poor. The Church must go out of itself, in order to be close to those in need. Conversely, the church that does not go out into the world keeps Jesus imprisoned.

If one can detect the direction of Pope Francis’ pontificate, it has something to do with the movement from security to boldness, from being inward looking to looking outward, from preoccupation with the present status and safeguarding our privileges to learning to be vulnerable, and learning to convey God’s compassion to those who are on the edges of society and the church.

Hence, our challenge is to accompany people from the margins into a journey towards the fullness of life and love. It is to embrace the call of the Vatican Council to identify with the joys and hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of those who are poor and in anyway afflicted. It is to be the bearer of joy to those who are most deprived of it. To do this, we must be able to live in and to bridge the yawning gap between the ideal and the real, between what the church teaches and how the people respond.

Pope Francis challenges all of us to divest ourselves of clericalism and elitism, to return to the purity of the Gospel. His constant call to the Church, to be less concerned with itself and to be more outward looking encourages us to walk with our people in the ambiguities and complexities of their lives. The self-referential church steeped in a culture of splendour is in stark contrast with the church of the poor and for the poor. It is the latter that we must endeavour to serve if we want to pattern ourselves according to Jesus the prophet, who spoke from the margins. The new wine of God’s unconditional love, boundless mercy, radical inclusivity and equality needs to be poured into new wineskins of humility, mutuality, compassion and powerlessness. The old wineskins of triumphalism, authoritarianism and supremacy, abetted by clerical power, superiority, and rigidity, are breaking.

It is a vocation of the Christian leader to be with his people in their hopes and struggles, anxieties and fears. He or she is to be a Malcolm in the Middle who occupies liminal, peripheral and precarious places. It is not easy to be in the middle, and to be loyal to both ends of the spectrum, to belong to the Church of orthodoxy and yet also to minister in the world of the unorthodox. It truly involves being, as the saying goes, between a rock and the hard place. Yet, that is the calling of the leader, because we are meant to be at the coalface, in the messiness of it all, faithful always to the Gospel. We are sent to the strong and the weak, the wholesome and the broken, the churched and the unchurched, the pious and the impious, the normal and the bizarre. We are sent to them through the gate, who is Christ. We are sent often from the inside out and not from the outside in. Like Christ in his ministry among the sick and the lost, we are called to meet God in the most unlikely people and places.

Holding the tension between
the old and the new

I have a particular interest in the biblical experience of the exile. My personal story of being a refugee, my struggle for a new life in Australia, coupled with my Franciscan heritage have all contributed to the sense of hope which was the legacy of the Exile of old and which should inform and enlighten our present exile experience. Like the prophets who accompanied their people into exile, who interpreted the signs of the times and led them in the direction of the Kingdom – the arc of salvation history if you like – we must do the same for our people in the context of this new millennium.

The priesthood is not meant to be a numbers game. The strength of our mission does not depend on a cast of thousands. Quality, not quantity, marks our presence. It is substance and not the size of the group that makes the difference. Hence, this time of diminishment can be a blessing in disguise as it makes us reliant less on ourselves but rather on the power of God. Diminishment allows us the precious opportunity to learn the power of vulnerable trust and to seek the will of God in situations of crisis. Diminishment is not a time for activism, cynicism or nostalgia. Diminishment is not a time to apportion blame to certain individuals and groups, or to engage in the battle of ideology: the conservatives versus the liberals, the pre-Vatican versus the post-Vatican, the restorationists versus the “Gaudiem et Spes” generation, those who espouse the hermeneutics of continuity versus those who favour hermeneutics of rupture. No, it is rather a time for deepening our commitment, a time for grounding ourselves in the immensity of God’s love. It is a time of silent hope, discernment and mysticism.

The time that we are living in can be likened to Holy Saturday in the Gospel. It is the day of God’s concealment, of the great solitude of Jesus. It is a time of ambiguity, of mourning and yet hoping for good news; it is a liminal interval, a time in which one stands between the old and the new. Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb of Jesus that day is a symbol of the church in mourning. In another way, she also stands for us, who have entered a Holy Saturday of our own. It is our dark night of the soul, as the mystic John of the Cross would call it. We priests can be a bridge between the old and the new. Our task is to live the creative tension between the pain of the present and the hope of the future.

St Paul talks about the hope of the future through the metaphor of childbirth. ‘The whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now’ (Romans 8:22). In a sense, we priests, have to bear those labour pains. The delivery of new life necessitates the ability to live the creative tension between the pain of the present and the hope of the future.

Pope Francis in a recent address stated that he wanted pastors who can ‘imbue hope’ and ‘have sun and light in their hearts, to lovingly and patiently support the plans which God brings about in His people.’ For him, the ability to imbue hope is intimately linked with the stripping of oneself and of beginning anew. In other words, our priestly vocation is the embodiment of the Paschal Mystery. We can only reframe a harsh reality into a vision of hope for our people when we ourselves have the courage to live in that liminal space, that darkness of Holy Saturday, that interim ambiguity that lies between the old and the new.

Breaking open the priesthood

I visited Mundelein Seminary in Chicago earlier this month and I noticed an interesting feature of the Seminary Chapel. There were seven steps leading to the high altar and on the side of each step was written the respective name of one of the seven Holy Orders. Each step would create an ever-growing chasm between the candidate and the people. It dawned on me that these vestiges of the Tridentine Model of priesthood are powerful symbols of the clerical class. It is part of the ecclesiology that emphasises the ontological change
and separation of the ordained from the faithful. It is a powerful ingredient and ideal condition for the disease of clericalism to fester.

I hold that it is time for this exalted model of priesthood to be consigned to the past. Instead, we must rediscover the specific and full charism of the priesthood within the matrix of the universal priesthood of the faithful. The priesthood cannot be lived fully apart from the community of disciples. This is one of the key insights of the Vatican Council. The church is not the church of the ordained but of all the baptised.

There existed a variety of ministries in the early church. Paul bears witness to this when he lists a number of gifts or charisms that Christ gave to the church for the building up of His body. Yet over the centuries, this richness has been gradually concentrated in the ordained at the expense of the baptised. In effect, the priesthood of the ordained has assumed and usurped the rich and varied ministries of the baptised. It is time, therefore, that the notion of priesthood needs to break open anew, so as to fully honour what Paul says in that same passage in Ephesians 4 ‘everyone is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ’.

If we are to break open the priesthood and allow the ministries of the baptised to flourish, I think we will need to revisit the clerical and patriarchal culture along with its many institutional dynamics such as titles, privileges, customs, structures etc. I am not suggesting that the lines of distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained be erased. Rather, each one should complement, rather than stifle the other. I would hold that those institutional dynamics that breed clerical superiority, elitism and power, over against the non-ordained stifle rather than facilitate the outpouring of grace through the whole body of Christ. Furthermore, it is my conviction that the priesthood ‘pedestalised’ is the priesthood dehumanised. It is bound to lead us into the illusion of a messiah complex and an inability to claim our wounded humanity and to minister in partnership. What we need to do is to humanise the priesthood so as best to equip ourselves with relational power for authentic Gospel living and service.

When Jesus sent out his disciples to announce the Good News, he did so in pairs. What I derive from that practice of his is, that Christians can only minister effectively when they recognise their limits as individuals and are open to partnership with others. Yet, ironically, the whole culture of priestly formation is often geared towards individual heroism. The Curé d’Ars is probably the patron saint par excellence of that kind of priestly individual heroism. No wonder many of us suffer from ministerial burn out, depression and loneliness. If the priesthood has a better future, it has to find expression in better mutual support, collaboration and partnership. I would especially emphasise the ability to minister with women, because the church is much the poorer without the gift of women. A protestant minister was invited to a house warming party of a Catholic priest. As the host showed him around the magnificent new presbytery, the protestant minister remarked with a wink of his eye: ‘You Catholic priests might have better quarters. But we have better halves!’ Perhaps the joke is on us priests who fail to appreciate the Gospel injunction of ministering in mutuality and partnership.

In my testimony at the Royal Commission I maintained that we need to dismantle the pyramid model of church. For I hold that this model, which promotes the superiority of the ordained and the excessive emphasis on the role of the clergy at the expense of non-ordained, is at the very root of the culture of clericalism. To dismantle this model is not to dismantle the church per se or even the hierarchy (of whom I am a privileged member). Rather, it is to acknowledge and to have the courage to die to the old ways of being church that no longer convey effectively the message of the Gospel to the culture in which we live.

I am very much of the view that abuse in the area of sex is a form of abuse of power. I believe that we cannot address the issue of clerical sexual abuse without examining the clerical culture in which unhealthy attitudes and behaviours are fostered. Until we have abandoned the game of power and control that has been our cultural captivity, until we have put downward mobility front and centre in the Church, which is what Jesus was all about, I doubt we can seriously heal ourselves of this disease.

Conclusion

As we are cut loose from the safe and secure moorings of the past and launched into the treacherous waters of the future, we grow in the awareness of Paschal rhythm. We realise what needs to die and what needs to rise. The prophets of doom tell us that the priesthood is dying. They are ready to write obituaries for an institution so glorious in the past but now hopelessly riddled with crisis. They say this is the end for us. The sexual abuse crisis will be the final nail in the coffin. I wager that they are right – but only half right. They fail to see the other side of the equation. The Catholic priesthood is only dying to that which is not of Christ. It is dying to worldly trappings, triumphalism, and clericalism; it is rising again to the power of vulnerability, servant-leadership, discipleship of humble service and radical love. The Paschal rhythm summons us to a discipleship of humility, weakness and vulnerability, of dying and rising in Christ.

In the end, though, I firmly believe that we’re on the threshold of renewal and transformation of the priesthood. Like the wedding feast of Cana, the wine of old has served the church well but it is running out. The old way of being a priest has, likewise, well served the church we love. But that model of the exalted, separated and elitist priesthood is drawing its last breaths – at least in many parts of the world including Australia. There is a better wine that the good Lord has prepared for us. May we be like Mary, who recognises the end of the old and the beginning of the new era. Let us, like her, accompany people in the crisis of the emptying of the old wine. Let us, again like her, point out to them the way forward by cultivating faith and trust in God, who alone can transform the water of our poverty into the new wine of God’s creative power and enduring love.[/s2If]

The status of women in Jesus’ time

Monique (real name supplied and withheld) looks at how Jesus broke the rules applying to gender. She writes with thanks to Jose Pagola’s ‘Jesus’.

To appreciate what women saw in Jesus and how he saw them we need to look at what life was like for women and wives in his time.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]Archeologists seem to think that villages in Palestine were made up of ‘families’. Not so much a father, a mother and children as we understand the term but more a family cluster. Maybe three, four, or, if a family cluster was particularly strong, even five families of common ancestry whose simple dwellings were gathered in a loose circle around a common courtyard.  The more male sons a man had the bigger and stronger the cluster!  In that simple courtyard there would have been a common grinding stone to make flour, a wine press, an olive press, a few tools to work their plot of land and fishing gear if there was a lake nearby. This central courtyard was the domain of the women. If they went outside this courtyard they were to be accompanied by a male member of the cluster. If they went to draw water they went as a group with a male. When they went to the synagogue they were forbidden to enter the synagogue proper but stayed in the women’s segregated room. Women were forbidden to enter the inner parts of the Temple.

So patriarchal was this society that a woman was considered as ‘owned’ by her husband. She was passed from father to husband in marriage. When she was menstruating or after child birth she was considered ‘untouchable’ because of her ritual impurity. Apparently, the period of ritual impurity was forty days after a male child, eighty days after a female child!  What does that say?  Anyone who came into contact with her was also seen as ‘unclean’. A man could divorce his wife and marry another by a simple note of dismissal. If she was divorced it would mean exclusion from that family cluster with no support. Many would have resorted to begging and prostitution. Don’t forget, as well as local customers (men!) there was the occupying Roman legion!

Outside a family cluster women did not exist. They were invisible!

No doubt there were many less demeaning Rabbinical teachings than those Jose Pagola quotes in his book, Jesus, but here a couple of samples. ‘Whoever teaches the Torah to his daughter teaches a libertine because she will make bad use of what she learns’ and a prayer for men to say,  ‘Blessed are you, Lord, for you have not created me a pagan, or made me a woman or an ignorant person.’

This is the society Jesus grows up in. His ‘family’ is part of a family cluster. He has seen the women sweeping their houses, grinding wheat at the stone, helped Joseph make a few bits of furniture, but mostly repair the old pieces that have been in a family for years. Women are worse than second class, except for bearing children and preparing food they are not seen. It is interesting to wonder how Jesus’ mother would have coped with all this – no doubt she had a good husband in Joseph, ‘a man of honour’.

What is Jesus’ reaction to this status of women?  He scandalizes. Solitary women are in his group; he eats and drinks with sinners; keeps the company of prostitutes, allows them to touch him, kiss his feet and I daresay, give him a hug! He allows them to return his love. He breaks all the ‘rules’.

Let’s look at these meals to which Jesus invites the ‘outcasts’. Having a meal with your friends is quite powerful. We are not talking about a rushed ‘feed’ grabbed quickly because there is little time. These are relaxed meals; time spent enjoying the food, the wine, the company of friends. The laughter, the singing brings acceptance, a healing togetherness that for a while banishes the harsh reality of life outside the meal. Bonds of friendship are forged and deepened. ‘I am accepted and loved together with all my failings and idiosyncrasies. Can you imagine what it did for me to be cherished by Jesus and not be owned by him! These people at table with me know me and love me for who I am, warts and all. Here is Jesus, putting on these meals, like the rich man’s wedding feast to which all are invited because those initially invited failed to turn up.

Everyone is invited: tax collectors, prostitutes, beggars, and me, a woman!  No one is excluded. This is not a men only affair. We are not made to go through ritual purification before we sit down, we are not asked if we went to the synagogue last Sabbath; or if we have repented of our sins. We all have plenty of time because we are beggars, prostitutes, day labourers or unemployed and homeless.’ Maybe if you and I try hard enough, we can imagine the therapeutic effect of these meals on someone who is despised by their society, and what’s worse in this ‘religious’ society, unloved by God – what worse kind of outcast is there that to be outcast from God.

And here is a prophet who is different. This prophet knows his Father’s love and compassion for what everyone else sees as the ‘wretches of society’. With Jesus, love comes first and ‘changes everything’. The ‘unloved is called beloved’. ‘Can you imagine what a touch, a hug from this beautiful prophet can mean to me? This frees my woman’s heart to love. I am no longer chained by men’s disapproval. I can reach my heart’s loving potential and that is all I have ever wanted to do. To love with all the purity and passion with which I am loved.’  For this reason, her sins, her many sins, must have been forgiven her for her to have loved so much. Jesus cuts below what we see – his compassion helps him see his Father’s beloved daughter and this is the kingdom of God in our midst. God’s reign has come into our world.

Is it any wonder the women have such a place in the Gospels?  They are the ones whose love makes them be with him in his suffering and execution – the men have fled!  They are the first after the Sabbath to ‘see’ him. Is it any wonder that Mary of Magdala hugs him tight – hope and love are inflamed in her again and she doesn’t want to let him go. She can believe in God’s love again and that the kingdom of Jesus’ Father is for the ‘outcasts’.

Now for the sad part. So much of this Jewish patriarchal society carried over to our Christianity. The early Jewish Christians brought with them their culture. In spite of Paul’s teaching that there is neither male nor female, slave or free in our Faith, there are so many remnants of patriarchy still with us today and have been over centuries. We have English translations of the Bible that continue to use exclusive language and liturgical prayers that almost do their best not to mention the feminine pronoun. It is my opinion, and only my opinion, that I believe Jesus is appalled by the exclusion of women from serving the Eucharistic community as leaders.

And that so much of our clericalism has been borrowed from the Jewish culture where priests, and priests alone, were able to enter the inner Sanctum and had such a privileged position. The Kingdom of God may be in our midst. It’s just that sometimes there’s a lot of fog around.[/s2If]

Visiting sex offenders in prison

Bishop Pat Power describes the pain and sadness of visiting people in prison and especially those priests who have been jailed for sex offences. He is inspired by the gospel imperative – I was in prison and you visited me (Matthew 25, 36). He wrote this piece in December 2016.

[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]Recently, I was asked independently by two people to be interviewed relating to my visiting in prison priests who had been jailed for sexual abuse. I have agreed to those requests and write what follows as background.

In my ministry as priest and bishop, I have tried to care for people who are less fortunate and I regard personal contact as a very important part of such ministry. Especially since my retirement, I spend a large part of my time visiting sick and aged people in their homes, in care and in hospital. Consequently, I find myself officiating at between twenty and thirty funerals a year.

Since becoming a bishop in 1986, I have found myself visiting in prison people serving time for a whole range of crimes. Currently, I am on the roster to say Mass at the Maconochie Centre, the ACT prison. Over the years, I have visited prisoners in five NSW prisons and in Tasmania. For me, it is always a very humbling experience where I encounter not only the worst of human misery but also much hope and redemption.

Two of my seminary classmates have done jail time for sexual abuse of minors and a number of other contemporaries have suffered a similar fate. Needless to say, it has been an occasion of great shame and pain for them. Understandably many of their former parishioners and friends have been devastated to discover that these men of God have betrayed the trust shown them. No longer do they feel they can have anything to do with their former pastors. In a very traumatic way, the families of those who have been abused have also been deeply wounded by the damage done to those they love.

Especially since 1996 I have joined with my fellow Australian bishops and the leaders of religious orders in drawing up procedures to respond to complaints of sexual abuse and the implementation of protective measures to ensure as far as humanly possible that such crimes are not repeated. Since the Royal Commission into sexual abuse began its hearings, the horror of such abuse has become abundantly clear, and like it or not the Catholic Church and other institutions are being forced to take measures of reparation and prevention. At the time of Prime Minister, Julia Gillard’s announcement of the Royal Commission, I wrote that it should be taken as an impetus for reform and renewal in a whole range of areas. The formation of the Truth, Justice and Healing Council under the leadership of Francis Sullivan has been an important part of the Catholic Church’s response.

On a personal level, I have never felt any sense of conflict or compromise in supporting priests or others in prison and after their release. It is clear to them and any observer that such support from me does not indicate any condoning of the crimes for which they have been punished. Surely, rehabilitation must be part of helping them in their future lives. One of the criticisms I would make of the prison system is that not nearly enough is done to help the inmates to prepare for life ‘outside’. This leads to repeat offending with more and more people filling our jails.

Knowing something of the family history of my friends who have gone to prison helps me to have some insight into what led them to commit their crimes in the first place. While I was blessed in growing up in a happy and secure (if not perfect) family, I recognise that this was not the case for some of my friends who have ‘gone off the rails’. This is not to excuse their aberrant behaviour, but it goes some way to explaining such behaviour. I should also add that during my time of seminary training (1959-1965), the formation we received for human relations was quite deficient. Our sexuality was either ignored or spoken about in very negative terms at a time when we were being confronted with teenage or young adult emotions. Without trying to be an amateur psychologist, I am sure that many of my friends’ problems arose from their psycho-sexual immaturity which was not addressed during the time of our formation. While sexual deviations were clearly branded as sinful, there seemed to be little understanding that ‘grace builds on nature’ and that genuine spiritual growth needs to be underpinned by healthy human development. One of my friends told me that when he raised the issue of homosexuality with the spiritual director, he was told that it was too awful a subject to be discussed.

I hope that the bonds of friendship that I have with my unfortunate friends is helping them to have some sort of life when so many people can treat them only with loathing. I recognise that they can have no continuing ministry in the Church, but I would hope that they can still contribute something to society. Clearly, they need supervision and the ongoing friendship and trust of good friends is surely part of that. I make no apology for extending the hand of friendship in whatever way I can. I continually remind myself ‘There but for the grace of God go I’.

Having said all that, I should also add that I have spent much time in listening to and helping, in whatever way I can, those people who have suffered abuse. I remember Bishop Geoff Robinson over and over again pleading with bishops to listen first-hand to victims’ stories of abuse. Some of the most moving conversations and interactions I have had have been in listening to such painful accounts, sometimes uttered for the first time. From there, at times I have been able to persuade the person to get professional help or assist them to take the matter to the police. I am currently trying to help a 50 year old female friend to renegotiate a compensation settlement which I believe was grossly inadequate and another person still ‘raw’ after bringing attention of school-boy abuse to the Royal Commission. A little while back, I attended a ‘Liturgy of Lament’ at Marist College in Canberra. It was a very moving ceremony where abuse was named and the horrors of it spelt out and a monument unveiled as a permanent reminder of abuse which had caused terrible damage including suicide.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers in this terrible chapter of the history of the Catholic Church but I hope in some way to be a ‘companion on the journey’ to all my brothers and sisters searching for healing, meaning and understanding. I write this at the conclusion of the Jubilee Year of Mercy, called by Pope Francis, and as we prepare to celebrate the Feast of Christmas when Jesus came into our world and into our lives that we might have life and have it to the full (John 10,10).[/s2If]

Golden Jubilee of the Episcopacy of Archbishop Len Faulkner

Bishop Eugene Hurley spoke at the Golden Jubilee of Archbishop Len Faulkner.[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]

It is particularly apt and appropriate that we should be celebrating the Golden Jubilee of the Episcopacy of Archbishop Len Faulkner on the feast of All Saints.

I say this because ‘saint’ is a word that St. Paul is particularly fond of. In most of his letters, Paul greets his readers as ‘saints’. He means by this term that they are the true believers, they are the holy ones, the holy people of God: they are in fact the church. This is eminently applicable to the family of Archbishop Faulkner.

Archbishop Len began life in Murray Town which is an outer suburb of Booleroo Centre, which is in turn a suburb of the city of Carrieton. In fact these places had much in common. The people who lived there were people of the earth who treasured the important things in life. The Faulkner family epitomised this fidelity of life.

When the depression struck and Len’s father found himself out of work with a family to support. Len, at age 10, remembers his Dad praying the 90 day prayer and then calling the family together. He remembers, until this day, the words of his father. Having outlined the drastic state they were facing his father said, ‘God will look after us.’

It was obvious to the family that he meant it, and so the family then went about life with a sense of hope and security. As Len says, ‘God did look after us in answer to prayer and the faith of my father.’

Family was the cradle of faith for Len, and it was the place where the love of God was experienced through the faith and love of his parents and siblings. This experience proved pivotal and defining in the life of Len as both priest and Bishop.

The practise of the faith was simple, and a natural part of life for the family. There was Mass once a month in Murraytown and so the family walked the 3 kilometres to Mass and back as a family. There was the Rosary and plenty of prayer in the home.

One of blessings that came to the family, was a bursary for Len to attend and board at Sacred Heart College, here in Adelaide. This made an enormous difference to Len and he regards that part of his life as a real grace from God.

It was probably there that the gentle call of God came to him to consider the priesthood. The role model of priesthood that Len knew, was that of men committed to serving the people, often at great cost to themselves. Len was either the first, or certainly one of the first students, at the St. Francis Xavier’s Seminary.

Young Christian Workers

Shortly after his ordination in 1950 he was exposed to the YCW, the Young Christian Workers. A wonderful way of life developed by a Belgian priest Fr. Cardijn. It put Len in touch with the lives, the struggles and the wonderful faith of young women and men.

This was the burgeoning of Len’s enormous commitment to and support of the lay people as a critical part of the life of the church. Len saw the lay people with whom he worked as St Paul saw them….as Saints; the true believers, the holy ones, the holy people of God; as the church in action in the world.

This conviction was strengthened by the Second Vatican Council and Len was enthusiastic in implementing the recommendations of the Council, particularly enhancing the role of the Laity.

In 1967 the then Fr. Faulkner, was appointed as Bishop of Townsville diocese. This appointment to Townsville pretty much coincided with the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council and he worked hard to implement the recommendations of the Council in his new diocese. This was a very new experience in a very new environment. He set about implementing the Councils recommendations.

He visited the large diocese regularly and set up Parish Pastoral Councils and supported, in a practical way, the people living in the more remote parts of the diocese. This appointment also gave Len the opportunity to experience the life and spirituality of Aboriginal catholic people, especially on Palm Island.

As Bishop of Townsville he was well served by Shiela Hill as his Secretary. This relationship became very important to Len as his life as Bishop and Archbishop unfolded. Shiela became secretary, chef and even carer.

Coadjutor Bishop to Archbishop Gleeson 

In 1983 he was appointed as Coadjutor Bishop to Archbishop Gleeson. Len tells the story of ringing his mother to tell her of his appointment. She replied, ‘Oh I think you would be better off staying in Townsville, Len.’  Sensing her lack of enthusiasm Len started name dropping, pointing out that the Pope had appointed him. Len’s mother reluctantly accepted that that probably made it OK, but added, ‘You make sure you do a good job for Archbishop Gleeson.’

In 1985 Len succeeded Archbishop James Gleeson as the Archbishop of Adelaide.

In April 1986, Archbishop Len introduced a novel model of governance which reflected his conviction that the church was truly made up of laity, religious and clergy. The first Diocesan Pastoral Team consisted of the Vicar General, Fr Jim O’Loughlin, Mrs Madge McGuire, Sr Patricia Fox and himself.

Under his leadership, this Archdiocese saw great involvement of the laity, at a time when there were great changes in the world and in the church.

In 1999 I was privileged to have Archbishop Len Faulkner as the Principal Consecrator at my ordination as the Bishop of the diocese of Port Pirie. I have always been grateful for the inspiration he has been to me as a model of pastoral care, and especially for his support and wise advice in my early years as a bishop.

Now here we are celebrating his golden jubilee as a bishop. That should guarantee him automatic entry into heaven. What a wonderful and extraordinary achievement. What a testament to Gods unfailing love and Len’s commitment and fidelity.

This Archdiocese and the Diocese of Townsville and the Church in Australia are indebted to you Archbishop and we pray today in thanksgiving for the graces you have received and for your enduring, and joyful fidelity.

Your life is a testament to your family and especially your parents.

Archbishop Len has shared with me an intimate letter from his mother Frances shortly before her death, it reads: A farewell letter to you all. I hope you like it. Looking back over all those years-good and bad-I am seeing all the love and affection that has always been with you all and with Dad and I. I see something of such beauty and deep thought and love for us and for each other it fills my heart with delight and I feel now as my life is drawing to a close that it will still be something wonderful to look back on in your mature years. We had very little of this world’s riches or the things that go with it but somehow it doesn’t matter much. We were never short of love. I want to say a fond and sincere thank you to you all, firstly for being what you are and for being so good to Dad and I over the rough years and the smooth. I feel my time is running out. Like the poet I am drifting down the stream. 

When I reach the final Good,

When my spirit hears your call,

I will bid an angel answer back,

How much I love you all.

May God bless you and keep you, everyone. Goodbye, Mother.

This is a man who has been nurtured in the bosom of a loving family, educated by the Marist Brothers and the Seminary, formed and moulded by the YCW and the Second Vatican Council, and has spent his life recognising and living in the midst of the saints wherever he has been.

Len Faulkner, a man among men, a priest for people and a bishop for the church. In the language of St. Paul, we recognise you today as a saint, a saint among the saints, for whom you have given your life.

Leonard Anthony Faulkner, we salute you.[/s2If]