Plenary Council a graced time of reformation
Aengus Kavanagh FSP, Patrician Brother, offers a reflection on synodality at the Plenary Council
Given the huge challenge of connecting and engaging almost 300 members from nearly the same number of different locations throughout Australia, the whole venture was a technological marvel as well as an impressive logistical accomplishment. No doubt there were times when agendas seem crowded, when discordant views surfaced, and when there were the occasional technical glitches. For the most part however, the streamline observers were blissfully unaware of any such mishaps. So, all credit to the main organisers and to members who dutifully participated in many briefing sessions in preparation for special responsibility roles undertaken. Likewise, appreciation to those who prepared and led the meaningful and reflective daily prayer.
The week that was
An enhancement of the daily Council program was the range of evening reviews, wherein selected members were able to share their perceptions on issues arising in each day’s agenda. It was enlightening and heartening to learn of the perspectives of Council members thus involved, and to sense their yearnings for better ways of being church. Archbishop Julian Porteous offered a different format each evening. He gave his own description of the day’s proceedings testifying to the spirit of goodwill and occasional inspiring interventions that prevailed throughout.
However, the Archbishop was candid enough to express his unease over a few matters arising. He sensed that understandings of church mission in some discourses were tending towards the superficial. He also mentioned a matter arising, which he deemed to be inappropriate for Council agenda. The issue in question was the feasibility of women preaching in church. In his opinion, this question was off limits as it was in contravention of the universal law of the Church which decrees that only the ordained have the right to preach within the parameters of formal liturgies.
Does the Archbishop’s stance here put a focus on a possible dilemma confronting the Plenary Council? In the lead-up to the assembly and in the workings of the Council, the rhetoric throughout has been on listening to the Holy Spirit, openness to diversity, and, earnest discernment in this context. And rightly so. What happens then in instances where collective outcomes of earnest discernment process do not align with the decrees of Canon law, and with current magisterial teachings?
Must those who are now consigned with the onerous task of synthesising the multitude of documents emerging from the assembly filter their findings though these lenses? Is subsequent scrutiny by Vatican Curial officials a dominant consideration in the articulation of statements to be forwarded to Rome? If so, are such statements likely to reflect the sensus fidei fidelium emanating from the multiple processes of prayer, reflection, dialogue, and discernment that have been integral to the Plenary Council journey? Besides does such caution tip the balance in favour of those opposed to reform, thus depriving the Catholic Church in Australia of the re-invigoration so urgently required in its own particular circumstances?
Room for reverse scrutiny?
From another perspective, does the Australian Catholic Church pass up on an opportunity to evoke scrutiny of laws and decrees which are archaic and outworn? In his launch of the Church’s forthcoming two-year synod process, Pope Francis gave an exhortation which would find strong resonance among many of the voices raised in the first assembly of Plenary Council: Let us not soundproof our hearts … Keep us from becoming a ‘museum church’, beautiful but mute, with much past, and little future (Pope Francis, Rome, 10 October 2021) While treasuring teachings and traditions that have served the Church well through centuries, in these times of unprecedented world change, does the Church now need to grow in an evolutionary consciousness?
A document called The Pastoral Conversion of the Parish Community, and released in Rome as recently as 2020 by the Congregation for the Clergy, gives a window into a style, and a language that speak to a bygone era. Though the document contains many good principles and helpful guidelines, its general pitch seems more apt for the church of the Western world, 1950s or 1960s. That was an era when – priestly vocations were plentiful, un-amalgamated and un-clustered parishes were the norm, parishioners of higher education were the exception, and women had a much lower profile in the public forum.
Institutions which remain insensitive to such realities run the risk of loss of trust and relevance. The document invokes Canon 538 in support of the assertion: The Parish Priest who has reached 75 years of age, should accept the invitation of the diocesan bishop to resign from the parish. And can you believe it, Canon 536: leaves it to the diocesan bishop to decide on the establishment
of a Parish Pastoral Council?
Against an emerging tide towards synodality in the Church, a recurring push in this document is on the shoring up of the authority of the ordained. In that vein there is the following assertion: laity that have roles of responsibility in the parish are not designated as ‘pastor’, ‘co-pastor’, ‘chaplain’, ‘moderator’, ‘co-ordinator’, ‘parish manager’, or other similar terms reserved by law to priests.
Overall, Canon law is invoked over 70 times in the comparatively short document in a push-back against perceived blurring of boundaries between the ordained and the non-ordained. The present Code of Canon law was revised in 1983. There have been seismic social shifts in the world and in the Church since then. The sainted Pope John XXIII introduced a theme to the Vatican II discourse, and which has been repeated in several papal encyclicals since, on the need for the Church to respond to signa temporum – the signs of the times. Surely it is not beyond the ambit of a national Plenary Council to point towards aspects of magisterium teachings and Church law that are in need of revision to stave off the ‘museum’ image of Church decried by the Pope and to ensure that tradition is an inspiration for the future rather than an urn for the ashes. (Pope Francis).
Newly appointed Archbishop of Dublin, Dermot Farrell, recently made an observation on the Irish Church which might gain easy resonance in the Australian Church – The current model of Church is unsustainable … a Church in crisis demands creativity. (Maynooth Seminary journal, Siolta, Aug 2021).
Carpe Diem … seize the day … grab the opportunity
This time of Plenary Council brings to mind another concept and another image of Pope St John XXIII – ‘aggiornamento’, and ‘open up the windows to some fresh air’. Can it be that the process and spirit of the Plenary Council so far, along with Vatican promotion of a synodality pathway, create a scenario conducive to reform of some policies and practices at a number of levels within the Church in Australia, reform that does not require an imprimatur from Rome?
One such change might be a national policy to replace ‘for us men’ with ‘for us’ in the Nicene Creed. Trivial you may think, but it could be a start in dismantling quaint mindsets and in the removal of embedded sexism in some Church language. Woke extremes are not being advocated here. However, male readers might reflect on how they would feel if Creed recital had them saying ‘for us women’! Ironic that the celebrant of the Plenary Council closing Mass adhered to for us men, despite the ‘women inclusion’ vibes among many Council members.
Pope Francis, in his first Apostolic Exhortation said ‘I dream of … a missionary impulse capable of transforming … the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures’. Apart from occasional ad-hoc and expedient parish amalgamations, and eight years later, there is scant evidence of any serious response to this Papal exhortation. How can such inertia and intransigence on the part of diocesan and parish leaders be justified in the face of massive alienation from the institutional Church – almost 90% of the baptised? The focus of the vast majority of sacramental and pastoral ministry continues to be on catering for the faithful remnant, following policies and practices that date back centuries.
Many readers of this article will readily recall names of their own family members and friends, who remain Catholic at heart and confidently tick the ‘Catholic’ box at census time, but who have no ongoing affiliation with the Church. A familiar response is that they have lapsed, succumbing to secularism. Whereas this may be true for many, another reasonable assumption is that there remain many baptised Catholics whose souls find little resonance in the Church’s present ways of mediating and nourishing faith and spiritualty.
A starting point in an effort to respond to this reality might be to ask ourselves the fundamental question, ‘What would Jesus Do’? The Gospels give us an image of Jesus as the itinerant teacher and healer. He was constantly on the move among people, encountering them in their lived experiences, meeting them where they were at, and inviting conversion. No evidence in the Gospels of Jesus devoting most of his time to those who regularly attended synagogue for Sabbath worship?
For diocesan and parish leaders who are serious about moving from the security of maintenance mode to the uncertainty and vulnerability of a missionary model of church, many possibilities will present themselves. Surely, one immediate priority ought to be a broadening of the umbrella of inclusion, in practical gestures of outreach to those who, as it were, are walking in exodus (Francis).
Much as we might like it to be otherwise, weekly Mass attendance can no longer be sustained as the sole criterion of genuine Christian discipleship by Catholics. This contention raises the challenge of providing opportunities for Catholics, so disposed, to retain some level of affiliation within parish communities. Creative imagination is required here to design a range on non-Eucharistic and specially focussed prayer experiences to match key events in the lives of the ‘alienated’. Such ‘experiences’ could be held in the church, in a hall, or in a variety of ‘host-hubs’ within the parish, and could be lay-led. Whatever, the challenge requires a change in thinking, instead of a fixation on bringing the people back to church, a willingness to seek to bring the church back to the people?
A kick-start towards possibilities
Despite the scandals of the Royal Commission into sexual abuse, and ongoing levels of ignorance and bias in sections of the media, the title ‘Catholic’ retains trust and social capital among many. Catholic agencies in healthcare, in social welfare and in educational services, are widely patronised. Yet, statistics reveal a huge decline in the number of church weddings and church funerals. Obviously, increasing numbers are ill at ease in choosing church settings and compliances for such ceremonies and rituals. Does it have to be ‘all or nothing’ for Catholics?
Surely, the Church can design a range of options, around which the parties concerned can negotiate, enabling the inclusion of a religious and enriching dimension of Catholic tradition within the ceremony, and in settings of choice. Maybe settling for a small ‘s’ sacrament, ahead of a completely civil or humanist celebration that can be another step in alienation. Some such ‘bringing the church to the people’ initiatives are already happening, some by default, some with official approval. So, there must be some wriggle room, even within current Canon law, to trial such missionary impulses. Such trialling of new wineskins for new wines entails a venturing beyond what has been custom and practice in the church for centuries. Hence, an essential need for leadership in re-culturing, leadership in formation and training, and the generation of resources – all towards a broadening of the co-responsibility base for the mission of the Church.
Another area inviting a paradigm shift looks at a prevailing attitude where there is a contrived dichotomy between the church and the world. Shades of superiority surface here where church is commonly portrayed as ‘sacred & good’, the world as ‘secular and bad’, and never the twain shall align! In his Sunday Mass homily at St Mary’s Cathedral, 19 September 2021, Archbishop Fisher reflected an attitude not uncommon in church circles. Along with a reminder of the divinely instituted structures of the Church, he cautioned against the -aping of secular models of governance.
In truth, the Church could learn much from what is good in the secular city, especially in areas of accountability, transparency, gender equity, and adherence to due process in staff appointments and dismissals. Besides, almost sixty years ago, the assembly in Rome, mainly bishops, at the close of Vatican II, voted 2,307 for, 75 against, overwhelmingly approving the Council documents calling for a new way of being church in the modern world. To the fore in Gaudium et Spes was the assertion: The joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the people of our time…are the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ.
A hope-filled future
The Plenary Council presents the Catholic church in Australia with a graced opportunity for reformation. Never in the history of the Church in this country has there been such formalised and collective soul-searching of the present state of our church, and on how it may grow as an authentic and transforming presence of Jesus in the world. In this quest, it will be helped considerably by approval of requests and recommendations formally submitted to the Vatican by the Council assembly.
However, such approval ought to be regarded as but one element of the reformation process. The more important element will be leadership at all levels within local church in capitalising on the Council revelation of faith, goodwill, and yearnings, fruits of the Holy Spirit, that remain in the hearts of so many Catholics. There is the need for enlightened, courageous and proactive leadership, to enable the Council model and experience to be the catalyst for fresh awakenings at diocesan and parish levels.
Compared to most countries, Australia has been spared the more serious ravages of Covid-19. A number of factors have contributed to this happy situation. One prime factor has been the collaboration in leadership among health care experts and political leaders. Through lockdown restrictions, through urging vaccination take-up, their mantra has been ‘We’re all in this together’. Such journeying together will also be a necessary ingredient for the revitalisation of our Church. This may entail position movements for some, movement toward the centre of the continuum bearing the labels at either end: ‘Conservative/Restorationist’ to ’Progressive/Activist’. Urgent needs of the Church in Australia, along with the strong aspiration of Pope Francis for a synodal church, invite such a movement.[/s2If]
