Catholic View

Confronting the crises in the Catholic Church

Eric Hodgens

The Catholic Church confronts the twenty-first century just as it began the twentieth century - as a Church divided.

At that time, the fractious debates surrounding the historicity and meaning of the Christian scriptures and the Vatican's controversial response to the "threat" of modernism left the Church ill prepared to respond to the seismic cultural, economic and political changes that would accompany the post-war reconstruction efforts.

Pope John XXIII, however, seems to have intuited that the times were changing, hence his decision to convene an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church - the Second Vatican Council. Between 1962 and 1965, the Council redefined the Catholic self-image. The old hierarchical liturgy became more inclusive - and vernacular, not Latin. The hierarchical Church with the pope who in turn directs the bishops, who in turn direct the priests, who in turn direct the laity, was replaced by the more participatory image of the "People of God."

The Council also embraced freedom of religion. Established religion was abandoned and the secular state blessed as normative. The last great declaration of the Council was that the Catholic Church was to live in, love and provide service for the modern world. Entrenched obscurantism seemed to be dispelled.

An invigorated Church membership enthusiastically set about renewing the whole Church organization. But a small rear guard was not happy and some of them were in power positions in the Vatican bureaucracy. They were dogged in their efforts to keep things as they had been.

They had successes from the earliest years. For instance, as early as 1968 they prevailed in persuading Pope Paul VI to maintain the condemnation of contraception even though his appointed commission advised the opposite.

Then the Vatican began the practice of appointing bishops who were less sympathetic with the Council vision. This became a major strategy under John Paul II, who was elected pope in 1978.

He was a charismatic public figure, but immovable in his vision of a fortress Church. His defensive Polish Church had had to fight every inch of the way to keep its identity under Nazism and then Communist Russia. He brought that strong, but uniform and unreconstructed view of the Church to the papacy.

John Paul II's rule was authoritarian and autocratic. He extended his control over the Church as he appointed replacement bishops. Throughout his papacy, he ensured that they complied with his mindset. The price was that the episcopacy became monochrome, subservient and weak in leadership.

Strong on the rhetoric of social justice, he replaced social justice bishops like Helder Camara with reactionary bishops, often members of Opus Dei, who undid their predecessor's work. Strong on the rhetoric of human rights, he nevertheless silenced theologians he disagreed with without transparent due process.

The tensions between this mentality and the sense of freedom that pervaded the Church following the Council gradually gave rise to two major factions.

Factional divide

There are two Catholic Churches in the Western World today. One is the hierarchy; the other is the rank and file laity, together with their local priests.

The hierarchy, in this context, refers to the pope and the Vatican bureaucracy in Rome, plus the bishops of the world's dioceses and their bureaucracies. The rank and file priests and laity include the parishes, schools, hospitals and charity organizations working at local level. The priests are all professionally trained. But also many of the laity working with them are equally professionally educated in theology, scripture, organizational systems and social sciences.

The recent book by Chris McGillion and John O'Carroll, Our Fathers: What Australian Catholic Priests Really Think about their Lives and their Church, gives us a directly personal insight into today's troubles and the way Catholic priests see the problems and are responding to them.

In interviews with fifty priests and an insightful survey, we find priests caught between the laity they serve and the opinions and attitudes of their own bishops and the Vatican. They throw light on a divided and troubled Church.

These two Churches today are running on separate and ever more diverging tracks, as Our Fathers demonstrates. Many of the priests and many of their people are critical of the leadership of the bishops and do not agree with many of the policies and moral stands that they take. They see them as irrelevant to today's world.

This outlook seems to be a majority view amongst practicing Catholics. But even this hard core is starting to give up. The hierarchy have their lay supporters; although active and noisy, they are very few in number.

Catholic core business

The core business of the Catholic Church is, firstly, to spread a vision of the meaning of human life. Members believe that God has revealed himself to humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Crucified and then raised from the dead, Jesus models the fullness of life that God offers to those who believe. The special relationship of Jesus to God is described in a series of images and titles such as Son of God, Saviour, Christ, Risen Christ and, most often, simply The Lord.

Secondly, they form communities of believers in parishes and organizations of shared religious interest. Though smaller today, many are still very vibrant. They gather regularly to celebrate the Mass, the great Christian feasts such as Easter and Christmas, and rites of passage like baptism, marriage and funerals. They provide education in this faith for young and old.

A third aspect of the core business is to teach a pattern of moral behaviour based on values taught by Jesus: love of neighbour, social concern and justice for all.

Major problems

There are seven major problems currently facing the Catholic Church in the West:

- irrelevance resulting in a massive drop off in membership;

- a desperate shortage of priests;

- an administration which appears paralysed in addressing this problem;

- the scandals of paedophilia and broader sexual abuse by clergy;

- an administration which covered this problem up, moved offending priests to other appointments, all the while being less than honest about the process;

- a Vatican policy of restoration of tight, authoritarian control combined with a resurgence of a fundamentalist outlook and an unwillingness to revisit strict moral restrictions in the light of new social science and changing social attitudes;

- a deep factional split in the Church between those advancing the Council vision and those reverting to the pre-council mentality and justifying their policy as a "hermeneutic of continuity."

Churchgoing and affiliation

In Australia, Catholic churchgoing and affiliation was at its height from just after World War II up until the late 1960s. The decline started in 1968 and is still tracking down.

From a peak of well over 50% of Catholics attending Mass regularly on Sunday, the number is now down to about 13%. The younger generations have mostly lost contact. Hence, today's regulars are largely older - the more persistent of the World War II generation and the Baby Boomers.

While abandoning regular churchgoing, many Catholics still want some of the services of the Church. Many want their children to identify as Catholics as they grow up. These generally take the step of having their children baptized and are sending their children to Catholic schools at as high a rate as ever. They seek out the Church for funerals.

The priest shortage

The Catholic ethos demands that members go to Mass every Sunday. Under Catholic rules you cannot have the Mass unless there is a properly ordained priest to celebrate it. But there is a desperate shortage of priests.

One priest is needed for every four thousand parishioners to provide the sort of parish leadership and pastoral care which has been customary. But there has only been a trickle of applicants for the last forty years.

The Melbourne archdiocese ordained fifteen a year from the 1950s to the 1970s. It needs to be ordaining nine or ten a year to provide anything like adequate priestly ministry today. But for thirty-five years now, the number has been more like two or three.

Over this same period, Religious Orders have collapsed and it is getting harder to recruit lay pastoral workers.

Talking up recruitment

Conservative writers frequently talk up the numbers of applicants for the priesthood. But the demographics do not support their claims in Australia, the United States, the UK and Ireland.

There was a trumpeting of the entry of seven students for Melbourne in 2011. With a retention rate of only 40% we should be on target for two or three ordinations in seven years time. Nothing has changed.

The talking up of vocations is self-delusion. There must be a new, effective way of getting priests. Yet the Church administration in Rome and in the offices of the Australia's twenty eight dioceses is paralysed in seeking a solution.

The main reason is the clericalism of the Church bureaucracy. This hierarchy believes that once a man is ordained a priest he is essentially different - ontologically different, to use their terminology. So he must be full-time and the role life-long. He must be male and pledge lifelong celibacy. This package underscores the clerical apartness of the priest. It also is a major reason why there are so few applicants.

Celibacy

Our Fathers gives clear insight into the central significance of clerical celibacy in the life of the Catholic priest. A majority of priests believe that celibacy is either detrimental or should be optional.

Despite it being a hot topic the Vatican will not discuss it. One reason is that celibacy enhances clericalism. It adds to the separateness, the sacredness of the priesthood.

The ordination of women

In 1994, Pope John Paul II rejected the case for ordaining women. He declared that the Church did not have the power to do it and, therefore, the matter could not even be discussed.

Pope Benedict XVI has reinforced this declaration saying that it was taught by John Paul infallibly.

Bill Morris was bishop of the huge, sparsely populated Toowoomba diocese. He wrote a Pastoral Letter in 2006 pointing out the dire shortage of priests. He called for discussion of the problem including ordaining women.

On 2 May 2011, the pope sacked him from his diocese without any due process or transparency. The situation is dire but discussion of options forbidden.

Habits become values

Max Weber cited the Roman Catholic central administration as a classic example of a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies always are at risk of goal displacement. Procedures set up to achieve a goal tend to become goals in themselves - in other words habits become values.

This has happened with the clerical prerequisites for priesthood - full time, life long, male and celibate.

The priesthood and the availability of Mass are allowed to decline in order to maintain conditions which were originally introduced to raise priestly status but are now destroying it. The Catholic hierarchy which gained its power under the old system seem unable to adapt to maintain the core value.

Since the sixteenth century, the pattern has been to live in the past and resist change and the new knowledge. Vatican II was, of course, out of character.

Paedophilia

Paedophilia amongst priests has been an enormous scandal which has rocked the Church. Equally scandalous has been the way it was dealt with by the popes and the bishops. Their first reaction was denial. An offending priest, when confronted, was seemingly repentant and was, in many cases, reassigned. Often he offended again.

By the time psychology recognized the compulsive nature of true paedophilia many reassignments had occurred. Most bishops were still reluctant to suspend offenders altogether from ministry.

Despite the criminal nature of most of these offences, most bishops kept their knowledge secret.

In the days of Christendom - from the establishment on Christianity as the official religion of the West by Constantine in 313 CE to the Reformation - privilegium cleri (clerical privilege) meant that clergy were tried in Church courts, not secular courts. This clearly does not apply in today's secular state, but that mentality is still alive and well in bishops' circles.

One good example was the attitude of Cardinal Bernard Law when, as Archbishop of Boston, he covered up offences and only reluctantly provided any cooperation with the secular courts. The public opprobrium this brought down on his head resulted in his resignation as Archbishop of Boston.

But his status within the Church bureaucracy was undiminished. He has only just retired from high office in Rome. This gives the impression that the policy of the Church has not really changed.

New procedures are now in place, but for many, they are too little too late.

New knowledge or the return to a dark age?

Both sides of the Catholic divide have their theories to justify their positions. The hierarchy claim a God-given authority to teach and govern; the rank and file faithful say that a teaching that is not received by the people is not binding. The hierarchy claim superior knowledge; the rank and file say that they are adapting the core Christian vision in the light of the new knowledge that has exploded in recent times and that this is being true to Vatican II.

It is ironic that, during the years of Christendom, the Church was the custodian and promoter of knowledge - new and old. The renaissance saw the development of secular knowledge. The Church tended to resist it. Galileo is one monumental example.

This resistance to new knowledge and new political structures still pervades the Catholic hierarchy.

Catholic liberals say that we need to identify our core vision and values, process it in dialogue with new discoveries in science, psychology, sociology and organizational theory and rearticulate that vision and those values so that it makes sense in the new secular, pluralist and liberal democratic society of the West.

The hierarchy respond with condemnations of secularism, relativism and calls to stand firm. The result is growing irrelevance in the modern world that the Council called the Church to rejoice in joining.

That is why the book Our Fathers is so important. It is a cri de coeur from a large proportion of the rank and file clergy who have taken the Council to heart and get on with the job of adapting and recontextualizing.

At this stage they seem to be in the majority, but are losing the political battle with a reactionary hierarchy.

Priest lashes out at Pell over new Rome guest house

Published in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald - December 1, 2001

 

Barney Zwartz

December 1, 2011

A LEADING Melbourne priest has criticised Cardinal George Pell for reserving a ''grand apartment'' for himself at the Australian church's new guest house in Rome, saying ''the ethics of our secular state are higher than those of our church''.

Father Eric Hodgens, an elder statesmen among the clergy, also savaged Australia's Catholic bishops for an abject performance during their five-yearly visit to Rome last month, particularly in failing to stand up for Bill Morris, sacked earlier this year as Bishop of Toowoomba.

''They eat their own when fingered by Rome,'' Father Hodgens wrote in the The Swag, the national journal of Catholic priests.

''How can you trust them? They are reckless with our patrimony. They seem incapable of protecting their own rights, let alone ours, in a system which is corrupt by today's secular standards. No wonder the attitude of so many priests and observant laity is moving from disappointment to disgust.''

Father Hodgens said the guest house in the old city - a beautifully refurbished old religious house with 33 rooms for paying visitors, richly restored grand chapel and organ, and 150-seat auditorium, opened by Pope Benedict last month - cost between $30 million and $85 million, according to different estimates.

He said Cardinal Pell hoped all Australian dioceses would pay for it, but only Melbourne, Perth and Lismore made contributions and the Sydney archdiocese paid the bulk.

''Was it worth it? Hard to tell. Dioceses do not publish their accounts. Diocesan funds belong to the Catholics of the diocese. However, bishops are free to dispose of diocesan funds as they please and with no disclosure, no transparency, no accountability,'' Father Hodgens wrote. ''Can this enormous expense be justified?''

He said Catholics of the four dioceses were not consulted, that there was no prospect of a reasonable financial return, and no accountability. ''What does it say of us who trust bishops? The ethics of our secular state are higher than those of our church.''

Similar secrecy surrounded the sacking of Bishop Morris, who never saw the charges or the report by an ''inquisitorial visitor'', Archbishop Chaput of Denver.

''And the Australian bishops simply rolled over. Like subs in sado-masochistic play they thanked their humiliators for being generous with their time,'' Father Hodgens wrote. ''Thank God we live in a secular state and not in a Catholic theocracy.''

Cardinal Pell is overseas but a spokeswoman for the Sydney archdiocese said Domus Australia cost about the same as a new parish or school, ''not the excessive amounts quoted by some ill-informed sources''.

''Domus Australia was funded by the transfer of an underutilised property investment, borrowings and donations - not parish collections,'' she said. ''Domus Australia is not an exercise in philanthropy; it is a property investment that will be expected to pay its way - all indications to date confirm this important goal will be achieved.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/priest-lashes-out-at-pell-over-new-rome-guest-house-20111130-1o718.html#ixzz1fEZTkMpN

 

Episcopal Trust

This article was published in the November 2011 issue of The Swag.

The Australian bishops were in Rome during October for their regular five yearly report. This gave Cardinal Pell the chance to get the pope to bless his favourite project in Rome – a beautifully refurbished old religious house which has been turned into a 33 room guest house for paying visitors. Its grand chapel and organ have been richly restored. It can be used for conferences and has a 150 seat auditorium.

It also has an apartment for Cardinal Pell.

It did not come cheap. Tess Livingstone and Paul Wilson in The Australian cost it at $30 million. But other reliable sources quoted by Paul Barry in Powerindex[1] say it is $85 million before overruns - the bulk of it coming from Sydney Archdiocese funds. The cardinal had hoped that many Australian bishops would have contributed but ended up with only Melbourne, Perth and Lismore coming to the party. These are the only names on the dedication stone.

Guests can book in at www.domusaustralia.org. The rates are $160 to $220 per night depending on the season.

Who paid and was it worth it? Hard to tell. Dioceses do not publish their accounts. Diocesan funds belong to the Catholics of the diocese. However, bishops are free to dispose of diocesan funds as they please and with no disclosure, no transparency, no accountability.

Can this enormous expense be justified? The Catholics of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth or Lismore were not consulted. It is a capital investment with no chance of producing a reasonable financial return even costing in a high putative price for the provision of a grand apartment for the Archbishop of Sydney. How can we find the answer when there is no accountability? What does it say of us who trust bishops?

The ethics of our secular state are higher than those of our Church.

One of Australia’s most pastorally effective bishops, Bishop Bill Morris, did not make the Rome visit. He had been forced to retire early by the pope. A bishop of a diocese is not appointed at the pleasure of the pope. He is there in his own right. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances may the pope intervene – and only if the good of the diocese and the Church at large is in grave danger. In a pastoral letter in 2006 Bishop Morris pointed out to his diocese that they are increasingly deprived of regular Sunday Mass because of the lack of priests. He said that, if ordaining married men or women eventually got approval within the Church, he would be prepared to ordain them priests. Note - only if approved.

In the light of this, the Roman curia called on him to resign. The main reason seemed to be that he had dared to mention the issue of women’s ordination. In 1994, in a letter called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II claimed that the church did not have the power to ordain women. In his view this ended the matter for ever. Pope Benedict XVI stated in a letter to Bishop Morris that this was infallible teaching. A bit rich if you understand the strictures and pre-requisites for infallibility built into the Vatican I definition. In fact it was simply a power play by Rome to reassert control and let bishops know where they stood.

To add some cred to the pursuit of Bp. Morris, Rome sent an inquisitorial visitor, Archbishop Chaput from Denver. His report was given to Rome in secrecy, never published and never seen by Bp. Morris. Rome succeeded in forcing Bp. Morris to take early retirement in May this year. It was presumed that Archbishop Chaput’s report was negative; but reliable sources quoted Archbishop Chaput recently saying that his report had been positive. How could you verify this? No transparency, no accountability. Meanwhile Bp. Morris asked Pope Benedict what recourse he had. The Pope’s reply was that the Canon Law provided no recourse process for bishops. Natural justice denied. Canon law is defective compared with the common law of our secular state.

Meanwhile, back to the ad limina. The bishops had interviews with Cardinal Levada of CDF and Cardinal Ouellet of the Congregation of Bishops. The cardinals told the Australian bishops that it was doctrine, not discipline, which was the issue. Really? Further their action was fraternal and pastoral – not juridical. Funny, that. And the Australian bishops simply rolled over. Like subs in sado-masochistic play they thanked their humiliators for being generous with their time. Bill was done. As one keen commentator observed – they eat their own when fingered by Rome. Look at Heaps, Robinson and Heather. And add Hunthausen and Gumbleton from the USA.

How can you trust them? They are reckless with our patrimony. They seem incapable of protecting their own rights, let alone ours, in a system which is corrupt by today’s secular standards? No wonder the attitude of so many priests and observant laity is moving from disappointment to disgust.

Thank God we live in a secular state and not in a Catholic theocracy.

---

[1] http://tinyurl.com/44vp9qc

Priestly Drought now 40 Years On - The Update.

This article was published in The Swag Spring Issue - October 2011

Brother Barry Coldrey wrote on the “Surge in Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life” in the Winter issue of The Swag. Many would feel a nervous sense of relief that we may be turning a corner in recruitment. The trouble is that the figures contradict it. There has been no increase for the last 40 years. Have a look at the entries at Corpus Christi College.

Entries have hovered around 9 per year for 25 years. Meanwhile the Catholic population of Victoria/Tasmania has been on the increase. 30 entrants per year are necessary to provide one priest for every 4000 Catholics.

This year’s enrolment of students continues the shortfall of priests which began 40 years ago in 1970. Sydney enrolled 60 a year in the early sixties; down to 8 in 1990. Melbourne enrolled 35 a year through the sixties; down to 9 in 1990. 1970 was the tipping point. Result: a 40 year drought. Since 1970 Corpus Christi College has enrolled only a third of the number needed. The same rates apply to New South Wales and Queensland.

The effect of this drought has already hit with bishops anxious to recruit any priest they can. But the situation will get a lot worse. The pre 1970 enrolments were high enough to produce an abundant stockpile of priests. These older men are the mainstay of the present rate of one priest per 5000 Catholics. But half of them are over 55 years of age. When they are all off the scene over the next ten to twenty years the effect of the 40 year drought will fully hit. The rate will then be one priest for 10,000 at best.

Enrolments have to increase threefold to keep the present rate going. That is clearly not going to happen.

Who is to Blame?

Nobody is to blame for the enrolment drop off. All the helping professions are struggling to get recruits. Nurses, social workers, GPs and ministers of other religions are all in short supply. These professions have lost much of their former social status. They have become just other jobs competing in an array of vastly interesting, challenging and better remunerated professions. Furthermore, pressure to live life securely within the Catholic sub-culture has dropped with the easing of sectarianism and the more widespread access to wealth. Add to this the priestly pre-conditions of male, full-time, life-long and celibate and the turn off is overwhelming for today’s young male.

Talking up the numbers is worse than untruthful. It hinders planning an alternative strategy.

Handling the New Situation.

Despite the shortage of priests many parishes are doing very well providing good service, good pastoral care, good schooling and good liturgy. The parishes doing best have lay leaders in key roles with the priest delegating and co-ordinating. This sort of priest has reverted to being a presbyter and conducting an orchestra made up of lay people – some full-time, some volunteer.

This is the new model. Other options? Don’t even mention them!

Recontextualizing Catholic Faith.

24 August 2011

Eric Hodgens

In 1974 I was appointed the founding Parish Priest of a new parish. The parishioners were almost exclusively Baby Boomers with very young families. I expected a large number of them to give up churchgoing. But they didn’t. It was their Gen X children, well catechised in post Vatican II catechesis, who dropped out.

At a meeting of these young adults to discuss what was going on one said: “You can’t believe half of it so why believe any of it?”

Meanwhile school staff were finding that their students, especially at secondary level, simply were not engaged by anything to do with the Church. Faced with this indifference, the teachers had to revisit their own position. Most of them wanted to be able to believe it; some for tribal reasons, some because they sensed that there was something deeply meaningful here but had trouble articulating it, some because they were distressed that what meant so much to them meant little to their students.

At secondary level these teachers were at home when on justice and social action issues. They tried to make liturgy appropriate for their students and to create some sense of a community worth belonging to. They largely avoided Christian doctrine because it was a bit confusing to them and they were not able to teach it convincingly. Moral rules became a big issue. Some teachers accepted what they had been taught was the teaching of the Church. Others were not so convinced but taught the official line. Others had a conscience challenge because they no longer accepted the traditional moral line.

One suggestion to explain why this younger generation could not “believe half of it” is that they no longer experience the assumptions and images of the Catholic sub-cultural universe. They live comfortably in the contemporary secular, pluralist, liberal democratic culture. They do not feel the obligation to believe the scripture, tradition, doctrine and moral rules of Catholicism in the way preceding generations did. What has changed?

The Classical Mindset.

For most of its history Christianity has been the established religion of a confessional state. The 700 year period from Charlemagne to the Reformation we call Christendom. Christianity, the sole religion, was central to the body politic. All religious and educational matters were under the control of the Church; political power rested with the king. God was assumed to be the creator and provider of the universe exercising His authority through the king and the bishops. The universe, created by God, consisted of the earth with its moon and sun and the stars in the heavens. Everything that happened in this universe and in the lives of individuals was due to the will of God. The universe was very stable. Every creature had its given nature and acted according to that nature or, in the case of mankind, possessing free will, sin disrupted things.

Jesus was the human face of God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, who took a human nature to bring the knowledge of God’s saving plan to mankind.

The social order was pre-ordained by God. It was feudal with the king in charge and his subjects bound to him. The king exercised God’s authority.

Order was a fundamental value and both Church and King strove to maintain it. Heresy and treason disrupted the order and were capital offenses.

The underlying philosophy was that of ancient Greece and Rome. The system was fundamentally classic, unchanging and harmonious. History was the story of the interplay of characters in this stable structure. It recorded interplay within a closed system. It was cyclical and there was nothing new under the sun which rose and set according to God’s harmonious plan.

All enquiry started with the given and applied it to changing circumstances. New phenomena can be understood by returning to the classics. The methodology was top-down - deductive.

The Evolutionary Mindset.

The renaissance started an upheaval of this mind set. Humanity, not God, was the starting point of experience and knowledge. Humanism dominated art and literature. The scientific discoveries of Galileo and Isaac Newton revolutionized knowledge of the universe. Together with the philosophers of the enlightenment such as Descartes, Rousseau and Voltaire they overturned the old method of enquiry. Observation of the facts led to testable theories and the newly invented scientific method produced an amazing wealth of new knowledge. This method was bottom-up – inductive. And it worked. Later came Charles Darwin and the Big Bang theory and we found that our universe is anything but harmonious and predictable. It is a seething, evolving mass. The classical nature of all beings was replaced by a constant evolution to something else more adaptive to the changing environment.

The relatively stable unchanging political structures of Christendom also came under attack. The Reformation awoke thinkers to the rights of the individual. Luther’s private interpretation of the scriptures held a powerful seed of individualism which had the potential to undermine the God-given authority both of Church and State. As Christendom fractured into Catholic and Protestant the universal authority of Rome was lost. However, religion was slower to lose its dominance. In Western Europe established religions continued even after the reformation. The religion of the king was the official religion of his state. The French Revolution saw the overthrow of both king and religion and started a movement in Europe which ended up in the 20^th century with secular, pluralist, liberal democratic states and freedom of religion. Meanwhile, in the US colonies the establishment of any religion was ruled out by their constitutions. Freedom of religion has been part of USA culture from the beginning. Likewise in Australia.

Religious life still stayed more or less strong in Western society even without being established. Religions were recognized by the secular state but not endorsed. Religious leaders were no longer players in the top echelon of political life. Their political weight depended on the size and power and unity of their cohort of subjects. It was at this stage that the various religions missed the bus. The political order had changed irreversibly. Political leaders had to respond to their constituents. Political policies had to change and adapt to new social conditions. Monarchy had given way to democracy. But religions, especially Catholicism, retained and strengthened their monarchical structure. The pope lost the Papal States to the new Italian Republic but countered with Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility and the mantra “the Church is not a democracy.” Pius IX’s intransigence in the face of the new order had already been spelt out in the infamous Syllabus of Errors of 1864 which contains a marvellous summary. The proposal: “That the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” is condemned as the final statement of the list He may have saved the Church a lot of later pain if he had just opened himself a little to the signs of the times. We had to wait a full century till Vatican II suggested just that.

The theology which underpinned the catechesis that the older ones amongst us received was the neo-scholasticism which was revived at the end of the 19^th century and imposed by Leo XIII as the only theology to be taught in seminaries. It, in turn, drew on the scholastic theologians of the 12^th and 13^th centuries – predominantly St. Thomas Aquinas. Central to that movement was the return to the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. This theology set the climate in which other classical theologians such as St. Augustine were interpreted. One difficulty in our contemporary age which assumes the universe is in evolutionary mode is that these theologies assume the static, classic universe. Pope Benedict XVI constantly attacks relativism in today’s culture. But relativity is the cousin of evolution. There is no static nature of beings in an evolutionary universe. The pope’s problem with the concept is understandable. He is a leading theologian of the Augustinian, and therefore classic, static tradition. John Paul II was thoroughly trained in neo-scholasticism. Both have called for a new evangelization in the light of the collapse of the last few decades. Bur the theological background of both of these men explains how their vision of a new evangelization is to repeat the old catechesis – to try to reconfessionalise rather than recontextualize. This is simply not going to happen. Accommodation is necessary. We need a new language and a new articulation of the central Christian belief.

Different Modes of Discourse.

We are not very skilled at recognising the different modes of discourse in our language. Factual report is not the same as story telling. Truth can be found in the correct reportage of facts; but it can also be found in the affective and imaginative impact of a good drama or story. The language of fact – logos in Greek - is distinct from the language of meaningful experience – mythos in Greek. Theology, especially when it is told through story, as in the gospels, is mythical discourse. It yields truth via the meaning of the story rather than its factuality. The scriptures can be very badly misunderstood unless we make this distinction.

Karen Armstrong is one of today’s clearest writers on this subject. Read her Short History of Myth and, more recently, The Case for God.

Christian Theology can be problematical because nearly all its original written sources are in mythological language – the gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation. Quite a lot of later theology is in logos language. The Trinitarian definitions use logos terms such as nature and person, Father and Son – but they are always anthropomorphic and metaphoric. Furthermore they are always analogous attempts - i.e. partly accurate and partly not – at expressing the infinite mystery of God. God is bigger than any definition. Definitions can only be good as far as they go. Otherwise we end up with an idol – not a God that transcends all human knowledge and experience.

Misunderstanding the literary form of the scripture text leads to fundamentalism and loses the richness of the story’s meaning. The result is bad theology. The creation stories of the Book of Genesis are a central example of this misunderstanding. God’s first intervention is to bring order into the chaos. The six days of creation, if taken literally, are at odds with our known science. Seek the meaning in the story and you find that God is a bringer of order. The universe is good through and through. Humankind is ennobled by being made in the image of God – the main likeness being in knowing good and evil. It is also helpful to know that this story is very late in its authorship. Scholars now date it to after the Babylonian Exile – late 6^th century BCE. It is a post factum interpretation of Israel’s universe and story.

One result of the scientific and industrial development of the 17^th and 18^th centuries is the prominence given to the image of God as creator. Even if you did not believe in the God of Judeo Christianity, the harmony of the universe appeared to demand a creator. The god of enlightenment deism was primarily the creator. But both God and the deist god got a big shock with Darwin’s evolution. Many Christian apologists, including John Henry Newman, just took one step back and attributed the evolutionary design to God; the laws of nature were the secondary cause. The Big Bang theory upset that stance. The intellectual presumptions and imaginative universe have changed so massively that the concept of God as creator has to be totally recontextualized.

Living in a world where intellectual discussion is heavily weighted to logos discourse we all have a bias towards interpreting statements as logos. This shows in the common tendency to take the gospel stories literally. The youth who said: “You can’t believe half of it so why believe any of it” is probably bringing a literal interpretation to the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood and the so called “nature miracles” of Jesus. His question: “Are the stories true?” would mean: “Did they actually happen?” rather than: “What do the stories mean?” The stories are not factual (logos) but what they mean is very true (mythos) to the believer.

Different Christian Sub-groups.

Christianity, including Catholicism, is now very varied in the forms it takes. The Catholic Church in the first half of the 20^th century was fairly monolithic. It is worth noting that Catholicism has a fundamentalist wing, a Pentecostal wing and an ideological wing. All of these groups are small but very energised. Most Catholics, however, have been influenced by Vatican II, and are not in these groups and, often enough, find them off-putting. If they see any of these as representative of normative Catholicism they quickly lose interest and drift away. However, this is the only group that is open to mature Christian belief in this post-modern culture in which we live. It is this mainstream group (probably including many of us) that needs catechesis recontextualized in today’s cultural landscape.

Classical Christology – Top Down.

The study of Christology which has prevailed for most of the Church’s history has been based on the definitions of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon which took place between 325 to 451 CE. At the end of this process the Church had a fully developed theology of the Trinity. In God there are three persons. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and he has two natures, divine and human. The second person of the trinity took a human nature via the conception and birth of Jesus. The reason God the Son became man was to save mankind from being abandoned to sin after the fall. The Baltimore Catechism says:

60. Q. Did God abandon man after he fell into sin?
A. God did not abandon man after he fell into sin, but promised him a Redeemer, who was to satisfy for man's sin and reopen to him the gates of heaven.

It is worth noting that this discourse is logos style – yet it uses metaphors and images drawn from scripture texts that are thoroughly mythos in style.

This then became the starting point for Christology. Its argumentation is top-down. Top-down Christology starts with the presumption that Jesus is God. The theologian then has to explain how this divine person could function in human form. Problematic questions arise. Since God, by definition, has infinite knowledge what did Jesus know? Did he learn as any normal human learns? He suffered. Does that mean that God suffered? When he asked the disciples who they thought he was, did he know the answer already? Was there any development in his awareness of his divine status? How do you explain the passion and death in the light of his infinite power and authority as God? Could not God the Father have developed a less torturous method of atonement for sin?

The top-down Christology influenced the way the scriptures were interpreted. The gospel stories, told in mythos language, tended to be interpreted literally once the mediaeval Church had arrived. If Jesus is God, miracles tend to be interpreted literally. The virginal conception of Mary is taken as factual and the significance interpreted differently as a result. Stories of the magi, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, the annunciation and the rest of the infancy narratives are all interpreted differently to the way they would be interpreted in a bottom up approach.

Historico Critical Analysis.

The study of history was influenced by the classical to evolutionary change of mind set. The historian came under pressure to verify facts and sources. Interpretation of facts had to be by rational argument. The enlightenment figure Nicolas de Condorcet argued that history was a story of progress – ever upward - as opposed to the cyclical model of the classics.

At the end of the 19^th century an historico critical approach to the scriptural texts began to gain strength. This “higher criticism” sought to find who wrote the text and when. What were the historical, sociological and economic conditions in which it was written? It became clear that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were not historical accounts but writings aimed as bolstering the faith of the group for which there were written. When applied to the New Testament scriptures the reader could see much more clearly what was going on. What did we really know of the historical Jesus from these stories written by authors who viewed him with faith? What in the texts is literal and what is mythical? These questions seemed to endanger the divine status of Jesus. In 1907 the Catholic authorities condemned the movement as Modernism. Pope Pius X cracked down with a heavy hand on all and any unconventional ideas. The same ideas were disturbing some Protestants, too, especially in the USA. The Protestant reaction took the form of the Fundamentalist Movement with essays published 1910 – 1915. Fundamentalism is still alive and well today. This set Catholic theological and scriptural scholarship back 50 years. Vatican II permitted a more open approach to scriptural and theological study.

Bottom Up Christology.

Bottom-up Christology starts with the experience of the believers and follows the development of their thinking as the movement grows.

We can see the development of the thinking of the early Jesus movement by observing the time line of the various texts.

In chapter 2 of the Acts of the Apostles Luke, the author, has Peter give a speech to the Pentecost crowd. It goes:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.  .  .  .  Let all the House of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Although Acts is dated to the 80s the scholars identify this text as much earlier. Luke puts it into Peter’s mouth as he writes his account. The understanding of this text seems to be that by God’s plan Jesus has been raised to the status of Lord and Christ when he was raised from the dead.

Mark’s gospel is dated to the early 70s. His understanding seems to be that Jesus becomes the Son of God at the baptism by John.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." Mk 1:9-11.

Matthew and Luke are dated to the 80s. Their understanding is that Jesus had the status of Son of God and Saviour from his conception and birth. See the infancy narratives. One device they use to underscore Jesus’ divinity from his conception is to declare that Mary was a virgin mother. In this context Mary’s virginity is a Christological statement.

The fourth gospel, written around 100 CE,  understands Jesus’ divine status to have been from the beginning.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God  .  .  . The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. And we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

Jesus somehow pre-existed his conception and birth.

We see from the texts that the early believers developed an ever higher Christology as the decades of the first century passed. It is a development from the bottom up. What the disciples had seen happen to Jesus and what he said and did lead to this development. This growth in understanding is presented as the very centre point of Mark’s gospel in the chapter 8 scene at Caesarea Philippi where Jesus asks the disciples: “Who do you say I am? Since Mark positions this story right in the centre of the gospel we can see how central this question is to him.

The fourth gospel brings a very different approach. It takes as its starting point the final conclusion that Jesus is the Word which existed from the beginning with God. Jesus’ first encounter with disciples in the 4^th gospel has them come to believe that he is the Christ. This becomes the presumption through the rest of the text. Jesus knows exactly who he is and what is his relationship with God. This is the beginning of top down Christology. It starts a theological trend which ends with the definitions of the four early councils ending in 451 CE.

This bottom-up Christology is based on the historical facts of Jesus’ life and ministry insofar as we are able to discover them from the source texts available to us. The disciple group comes to ever deeper insight into Jesus’ relationship to the God of Israel. That insight is an interpretation they superimpose on their experience of Jesus – an insight we call faith. Spotting how that faith developed helps us to make sense of it and clears the way for us to come to the same faith.

New Cultural Contexts Call for Recontextualization.

By the end of the 1^st century disciples of the Jesus movement were called Christians. They were no longer a movement within Judaism. They jealously claimed their Jewish origins but were now a universal and evangelistic movement made up largely of non-Jews. As Rome became a more important Christian centre than Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria Christianity began to leave behind its Semitic culture and adapt to the surrounding Greco Roman culture. This process of recontextualization influenced the theology that resulted in the definitions of the four early councils that were thoroughly Greco Roman. The Jesus Movement which began in the semitic culture of Israel had become Christianity – inculturated into the Greco Roman world.

Some theologians such as Roger Haight, Elizabeth Johnson and Roger Lenears, have returned to a bottom up approach to Christology. This approach has developed as a result of the historico critical method of studying the scriptures. However, it is not well received by devotees of top down theologians such as St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic and neo-scholastic schools. Roger Haight, a Jesuit, has been banned by the Vatican from any teaching. Sr. Elizabeth has been criticised by the USA Bishops Conference. This confrontation is significant in that it shows how narrow the Roman position has become.

The Process of Recontextualizing.

Recontextualizing one’s own theological understanding calls for a keen awareness of our contemporary cultural context. Our surrounding culture is secular, pluralistic and liberal democratic. Our prizing of individual rights means that we need to persuade, not force, acceptance of what we teach. Note the points where you are uncomfortable about aspects of creed, practice and organization. Teachers have the added advantage of observing the attitudes, beliefs and priorities of the students. Areas where they disagree with the traditional should come under reconsideration. Genuine dialogue is essential for effective recontextualization. It is no good just reasserting the past – even in new terminology. The language which worked in a bygone cultural context may very well have to be revisited to speak effectively to the new. We do need a new evangelization as John Paul II and Benedict have called for. The call is right. Their vision of the response – reassert the past – reconfessionalise – is self-defeating.

Historical knowledge of Christianity through the ages is an advantage. Theology has been defined as “faith seeking understanding”. Culture limits the understanding of any seeker. We are all pre-programmed by the language and conceptual repertoire in which we are educated. All definitions are conditioned on the time, language and prevailing cultural presumptions of their period. So, for example, the Trinitarian definitions proclaimed in the language of Greco Roman culture can be fully accepted in their original setting but not make the same sense to someone from another time or culture. It is not only the perception but the intellectual method that changed as Christianity moved from being a Jewish faction to being a universal religion in the Roman Empire. This was recontextualization. There is a bigger gap between the classical intellectual world of mediaeval Europe and the evolutionary mind set of today’s Western world.

One good place to begin is the Christian scriptures which are the primary documentation of how it all began. Read Karen Armstrong’s small, readable book: The Bible – A Biography and Ray Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament. Then browse through the New Testament texts with an eye on the dating of the various texts.

Theology Evolves.

The earliest Christology developed during the 1^st century CE. This has been documented above. The method is inductive – starting from experience moving to identifying underlying reality. It develops within a community of believers. At the same time an Ecclesiology – an understanding of the structure and purpose of the believing community – develops. This can be discerned by reading between the lines of the epistles of St Paul, the four Gospels, the Book of Revelations and the other New Testament documents. The historico critical method is fundamental to this study because it discerns the date and sociological background of the documents. Greater insight can result from contemporary documentation which is not Christian. A couple of examples.

Take the story of Jesus walking on the water and calming the storm.

Then he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land, beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out for fear. But immediately he spoke to them, saying, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear." And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water." He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me." Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." Mt. 14:22-33.

A literal understanding of the story of Jesus walking on the sea and calming the storm results in missing the whole point of the story. Matthew believes that Jesus really is the Christ and the Son of God. And his resurrection is our guarantee. So, in the story of the calming of the storm on the Sea of Galilee he intimates Jesus’ power by having him walk on the sea – the place that harbours evil. He has Jesus calm the storm so that the disciples in the troubled boat end up saying “Truly you are the Son of God”. Peter is presented as missing the point and asking to be called to walk on the water – not the sea. He should have moved to greater faith in who Jesus is rather than make his act of faith depend on his ability to walk on the water – Lord, if it is you.

The point of the story is that for the believer Jesus is a uniquely different human because of his relationship with that overarching mystery we call God. So he can mediate hope to those in trouble and safety (salvation) to those in peril if the disciples have faith. The faith experience of Jesus bringing them to safety is beautifully proclaimed to them in the story. On the other hand if the story is taken literally the text becomes a proof story that Jesus is God because of his power to walk on water – a highly incredible scene. Then, if you deny its literal factuality you are seen by the literalist as questioning Jesus’ divinity.

Another example is the development of the virginity of Mary in the Gospel texts. Mary is almost a negative character in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 3:30-34 Mary and Jesus brothers come looking for him. They stand outside the house where Jesus is teaching a gathering. Jesus asks “Who are my mother and brothers?” Then concludes: “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” But Mark’s gospel assigns Son of God status to Jesus at the baptism by John at the start of Jesus public life.

With Matthew and Luke Jesus is Son of God from his conception and birth. In both of these traditions God is the source of Jesus’ status from conception. Mary’s virginity is an adjunct to this. It is a statement primarily about Jesus.

Adapting to New Cultural Contexts.

Trace the development of theology following a time line. Recontextualization has been constantly happening. Compare St Augustine’s images of God with those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. Augustine’s God is a law maker and judge. Compassion is must more conditional than in the New Testament; cf. the prodigal son. The political authority embraced by Augustine would brand him as a violator of rights in today’s world. But Augustine, as a bishop, is a big political figure living in a world of Roman culture. The theology fitted the new context. It held pride of place during the long period of Christendom.

The Modern Period.

The major revolution in thinking between the classical and the modern world has been explained above. Many theological opinions were attacked during the reformation. Some of the confrontations during that period were confusion of types of discourse on both sides. Some were genuine theological differences which still need to be resolved. Some of the burning issues include:

• Soteriology - the theology of what salvation means and how it is achieved.
• Theology of the Eucharist including the Real Presence controversy;
• The theology of revelation;
• Indulgences and the underlying theology;
• Papal primacy;
• Mariology.

Reform v. Restoration.

Addressing these issues is complicated by the contemporary factions in the Church. One faction wants to remain faithful to Vatican II and to go further along the road to reform while the other wants restoration of the pre-council mind set, theology and devotional life. This second group while much smaller than the first occupies a majority of the positions of power within the Church organization.

The response to many of the theological issues above leads to differences in liturgical and devotional practice. Confession has almost vanished from the routine life of the Church. Devotion to the Real Presence in the Eucharist in the form of Exposition and Benediction has a weak following. In both of these cases the Restorationist faction is trying to revive the practice but with very little success.

Morality and Ethics.

Church moral teaching has always been fluid. What is good or bad, lawful or criminal has always been a live issue in most cultures. The reason is that the major determinant of what is morally acceptable has been prevailing cultural attitudes. These vary massively depending on tribal, ethnic and class differences in society. This is the area where the Church has recontextualized its policies most of all. Often enough the Church has had to follow the lead of non-Church opinions.

It took the very secular world of the enlightenment to bring us anything like the human rights we now enjoy in western culture. The abolition of slavery, the recognition of individual human rights in the face of royal or state oppression have been won by secular reformers. The mediaeval condemnation of taking of interest on invested money (usury) gave way to new economic realities. In all such cases a changed cultural context brought a new theology. Church authorities are traditionally very slow to adapt to new contexts. Some contemporary burning issues are:

• Transparency and accountability in the Church;
• The status of women in society and the Church;
• Homosexuality;
• Contraception;
• Sexual mores;
• The status of marriage;
• New medical technology including IVF, stem cell research;
• Euthanasia;

 

The intervention of Church authorities on any moral matters is complicated because rank and file believers have often done their own readjustment while the authorities shore up the old position. The clearest example of this is contraception which is condemned by the papacy but deemed acceptable by most of the laity and parish clergy.

On top of that the hierarchy have lost enormous moral credibility because of their reluctance to adjust to the stricter standards of secular society in the clerical paedophilia scandal. They have offended by protecting criminals from the law and for a lack of transparency and accountability in their procedures.

Conclusion.

Like it or not cultural change is always in play in life. There are changes in language, in values, in our store of knowledge. The underlying faith of Christians in Jesus of Nazareth and the believing community that grew from his life and teaching remains fundamentally the same. However, if Christians are to remain faithful to Jesus and the Church they must adapt their evangelization and catechesis so that it makes sense in the prevailing cultural context. That is a call for genuine dialogue with the culture leading to a recontextualization of the faith and its organizational vehicle – the Church.

 

Recontextualizing Catholic Faith: Some Reading.

 

Armstrong, Karen, 1944- : The Bible : a biography.

Published: New York : Atlantic Monthly Press ; [Berkeley, Calif.] :

                      Distributed by Group West, 2007.

 

Armstrong, Karen, 1944- : A short history of myth.

Published: Edinburgh ; New York : Canongate, 2006.

 

Armstrong, Karen, 1944- : The case for God.

Published: New York : Knopf, 2009.

 

Brown, Raymond Edward: An introduction to the New Testament

Published: New York : Doubleday, 1997

 

Haight, Roger: The future of Christology.

Published: New York : Continuum, c2005.

 

Haight, Roger: Jesus, symbol of God.

Published/Created: Maryknoll, N.Y. : Orbis Books, c1999.

 

Johnson, Elizabeth A., 1941- : Quest for the living God: mapping frontiers in the

                      theology of God

Published: New York : Continuum, 2007.

 

Condemnation of Quest for the Living God by the US Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine:

Covering letter:

http://old.usccb.org/doctrine/statement-quest-for-the-living-god-remarks-2011-03-30.pdf

 

The Statement:

http://old.usccb.org/doctrine/statement-quest-for-the-living-god-2011-03-24.pdf

 

The Elizabeth Johnson Response to US Bishops’ Doctrine Committee can be found at:

http://ncronline.org/print/25020

 

Kennedy, Philip: Twentieth-century theologians : a new introduction to

                      modern Christian thought.

Published: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, c2010.

 

Kennedy, Philip: A modern introduction to theology : new questions for old

                      beliefs.

Published: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2006.

 

Lenaers, Roger, 1925- :Nebuchadnezzar's dream : or, The end of a medieval Catholic

                      church / Roger Lenaers.

Published: Piscataway, N.J. : Gorgias Press, 2007.

 

McWilliams, David: The Pope's children : the Irish economic triumph and the rise of Ireland's new elite.

Published: Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley, c2008.

 

Morwood, Michael: Tomorrow's Catholic : understanding God and Jesus in a new

                      millennium / Michael Morwood.

Published: Mystic, CT : Twenty-Third Publications, c1997.

 

Morwood, Michael: Is Jesus God? : finding our faith.

Published: New York : Crossroad Pub. Co., c2001.

 

Morwood, Michael: From sand to solid ground : questions of faith for modern

                      Catholics.

Published: New York : Crossroad Pub., c2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subverting the Dutch Church.

Cardinal Pell claimed in The Swag autumn issue that the application of the Vatican II reforms in Holland emptied the churches.[i] What a disappointing assertion! In the period following the council the Dutch churches were packed to the doors. It was not the council reforms which emptied the Dutch churches. It was the deliberate superimposition of anti-conciliar bishops by the small but politically influential curial group in the Vatican. Rome fractured the Dutch episcopacy – and the Dutch church.

Sunday parish Mass in Holland was a highlight of my first trip to Europe in early 1971. Active participation, beautifully prepared music performed by highly talented young adults on classical instruments and an intensity of attention from the congregation were its hallmarks. The experience was living proof that Vatican II had enlivened the Church.

The Dutch had a head start because they were major contributors to the council’s documents through their bishops led by Cardinal Alfrink. Edward Schillebeeckx was one of the cardinal’s advisors. Furthermore the renowned Dutch Catechism, commissioned by the Dutch bishops, was largely written before the council. It was finally published in 1966. The Dutch church was arguably the most dynamic in Europe.

The Dutch bishops set up a national Pastoral Council in 1967. This caused friction with the Vatican. Besides the bishops and clergy it included highly qualified professional laity as well.[ii] That was one of the objections of the Roman curial opponents – laity had an equal vote. The Pastoral Council continued the discussion on institutional reform that had not been addressed by the council. For example they criticised Humanae Vitae in 1969 and voted for optional celibacy for clergy in 1970. On these issues they were asserting opinions which were already widespread and hot issues in the Church and have remained so ever since.

Many older Australian priests will remember this friction between the Dutch hierarchy and the small, but influential, old guard in the Vatican. They thought that the reform would continue. After all, the reform vote at the council was almost unanimous: Gaudium et Spes – 2307 yes / 75 no; Lumen Gentium - 2151 yes / 5 no; Nostra Aetate – 2221 yes / 80 no. These priests looked to the Dutch church to lead the whole church further along the reform path which the council had begun. How naïve. It was not to be. The small “no” group had some powerful central positions in the Roman curia. They persuaded Pope Paul VI to reaffirm the sinfulness of contraception despite his own commission’s advice to the contrary.

The resolve of the Dutch bishops to keep the reform going confronted the Roman curial resolve to bring them to heel. The ace up the Roman sleeve was the Holy See’s power to appoint bishops. They split the hierarchy by appointing known dissenters from Vatican II to Dutch dioceses as they became vacant.

Adrianus Simonis was appointed to Rotterdam in 1970 and Joannes Gijsen to Roermond in 1972.  Similar appointments followed. In 1983 Bishop Simonis was appointed to the Archdiocesan see of Utrecht.

Fr Schillebeeckx had this to say about the Pastoral Council and the episcopal appointments:

"The pastoral council was beyond doubt a great event for the Netherlands. It went beyond Vatican II and provoked reaction. For example, Monsignor Simonis opposed it with all his might. Still a student at Rome at the time of the Council, he was against Vatican II and the Dutch bishops. After Vatican II, in the Netherlands there were to be some nominations of bishops opposed to conciliar openness. Simonis and Gijsen were nominated bishops of Rotterdam and Roermond respectively, at the time of the storm over the pastoral council, to combat all new ideas and break up the internal unity of the conference of bishops. They argued for restoration and took every possible opportunity of openly criticizing the pastoral council. Little by little, under pressure from Rome, other bishops fell silent, but in the parishes things went on as before. The break with Rome became increasingly marked. Priests and faithful no longer understood their bishops and increasingly parted company with them. So, there was not only friction with Rome but above all disunion within the Dutch church. That was the drama of those days."[iii]

This cynical use of political power resulted in reversing the reform and wounding the parishes. It was the reversal of the Vatican II reforms which emptied the Dutch churches. It was so effective that it became match practice for its wholesale use throughout the world by Pope John Paul II.

31 July 2011

---

[i] The Swag. Autumn 2011. p.18.

[ii] Edward Schillebeeckx. I Am a Happy Theologian. 1994. Crossroad Publishing Company. P.25.

[iii] Ibid p. 29.

A Time To Speak – And Act.

Eric Hodgens

10 April 2011

This piece was published in The Swag in April 2011. See www.theswag.org.au

A large section of Catholic priests are at odds with the public stance of the Church. The issues which disturb them include:

• the displacement of the main game of spreading a message of life, hope, compassion and forgiveness by overstressing moral issues;
• foreclosing on  moral issues which need revisiting - e.g. contraception, IVF, divorce, homosexuality;
• the personality cult of the pope to heroic dimensions under John Paul II, but continued with Benedict XVI;
• World Youth Days which feed the personality cult of the pope to the detriment of the local church and which have not reversed the flow of youth from the Church;
• the incessant condemnations of secularism and relativism;
• the non-consultative appointment of unsuitable and unwanted men to the office of bishop;
• the autocratic, non-consultative management style of most bishops and their uncritical submission to Rome;
• the promotion of reactionary, authoritarian and fundamentalist movements such as Opus Dei, Legionaries of Christ, Heralds of the Gospel, Communione e Liberatione as real, effective responses to the challenge of faith in a secular world;
• the tendency to scriptural fundamentalism which appears in Roman documents;
• the non-consultative and politically motivated superimposition of a new, defective translation of the liturgy. This one has the potential of sparking a people-power revolt as a growing parade of liturgical experts list the bad policy and the abuses still being perpetrated under its banner.

The discomfort these priests feel ranges from embarrassment to outright disagreement.

Yet, we priests do not speak up much. Why?

We were trained not to speak up. In our earlier years we were afraid to speak up because the bishop was too awesome a figure. The rank gradient was steep. Remember “My Lord”. Remember genuflecting and kissing the ring. And bishops learned the trick of controlling the pack by showing anger or displeasure at the first sign of disagreement.

We were also trained to put the Church institution first. Rocking the boat in public was disloyalty and self-aggrandisement.

More recently priests worked out that it was useless to talk up anyway. Bishops generally were impervious to criticism, especially on issues of Roman policy. The Diocesan Council of Priests became a waste of time in most dioceses. So, why waste your psychological energy? Just go back to your parish and do your own thing.

Finally, there was always the promise of obedience which imitated the antique oath of fealty to the liege lord. “Do you promise obedience and respect to me and my successors?” Priests took this literally and seriously.

This policy will no longer do. It is time to speak up and to act. The matter us urgent. Why?

The church in Australia and the west is in serious trouble. Church-loving laity know it, priests know it. The symptoms are clear: a drought of priests, dropping Mass attendance, the loss of the younger generation and a walking away from membership by the worn down hard core. So, what is the cause and what response is needed?

In Europe and its offspring, membership of the Church was overwhelmingly a matter of inheritance. The baby was christened and all presumed that it would stay a Church member for life. Most European states had an established religion. They were confessional states. Even after the arrival of the secular states the denominational sub-groups remained relatively large and strong. Christian identity remained confessional – i.e. I belong to this church, believe what it believes and practice religion the way it does. Membership qualifications were clear and the group’s boundaries were clearly defined. Two rules of membership provided continued existence. Firstly you christened your children and inculturated them into the group. Secondly, there was strong group pressure not to defect.

Since World War II  the social cohesion of religious groups has weakened leaving christened members freer to think and act for themselves. A lot of this is due to a massive expansion of knowledge – scientific, psychological, sociological, historical, critical. Combined with a massive expansion of education, the result is much more freedom of thought. In this new environment long assumed facts have been turned upside down. So many accepted beliefs and practices are seen as dated and irrelevant. Bemoaning the scene is no help. We must revisit the core message of the Church and re-work the way we present it in the light of the new knowledge in this new social context. One term used to describe this process is recontextualization.

Rome lays the blame on secularism and relativism and calls for a new evangelization. John Paul II started this call. Benedict has followed it up by establishing the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization. The problem with this is that there is no intention to review the articulation of faith and moral teaching nor an intention to try out new approaches to liturgy nor to experiment in incluturation. Look at the favoured new movements, the new translation of the missal, the catechesis offered at World Youth Days – all reasserting the old model which is not working.

The foreclosed answer is reconfessionalisation, not the recontextualization needed. Recontextualization entails accepting, even welcoming, secular and pluralistic culture. We rearticulate our core faith so that it makes sense in that context. We rearticulate our concept and imagery of God so that God is the unseen, transcendent core of being rather than the string puller and button pusher of a puppet world. Jesus becomes the face and voice of the unseen God and the channel of God’s faithfulness and love. Salvation is the hope that we can justifiably hold on to in the face of death – a hope reassured by our faith in Jesus risen.

The recontextualized articulation of the central message of Christian salvation is well under way. Scripture scholars like Ray Brown, Joe Fitzmyer, John Meier and Eugene La Verdiere have shown us how faith develops and its articulation grows. As Jesus became larger than life in the belief of the early Christian communities they told larger than life stories. Under their guidance the scriptures make sense.

Karen Armstrong has lucidly shown the distinction between logical and mythological discourse. If you want to have meaningful faith conversation in the modern world you must understand the power and meaning of myth.

Theologians like Roger Lenaers  and Roger Haight rearticulate the core of Christian theology in a way which is credible in the modern world. Michael Morwood and Philip Kennedy have done a fine job of popularizing this recontextualized theology. But their efforts are not appreciated by Rome. Haight has been silenced. Tissa Balasurya and Jaques Dupuis were both pursued by the CDF for recontextualizing Christian faith in the face of religious pluralism.

The Catholic Church had a great chance to meet this challenge at the start of the 20^th century. The response was Pius X’s campaign against modernism with mind-numbing results. We were not alone. At about the same time the US protestants answered the challenge with their fundamentalist tracts. We got another chance with Vatican II and Gaudium et Spes. The non-converted curial remnant got busy and won the post-conciliar battle especially under John Paul II. Gaudium et Spes was dismantled. The result is our unpreparedness for the current collapse. It is now the 11^th hour. The matter is urgent.

It is precisely because so many priests have taken steps along this recontextualizing path that they are in disagreement with Roman policy as it recycles the old confessional model. Many priests have already very thoughtfully modified their pastoral practice. They are already recontextualizing their own faith journey. They have replaced the simplistic faith of their youth with a more fluid faith borne out of experience, more mature and reflective appreciation of the scriptures and a more vital, dynamic theology.

Our promise of loyalty was made to the Church in the person of the bishop. If the bishop is wrong, a loyal priest speaks up. In the light of relentless alienating Roman policy, made acutely specific in the current imposition of the defective translation of the liturgy, we have the responsibility not only to speak up but to act.

The Language of the New MIssal.

The new Mass liturgical texts are very defective. Here are some expert critiques.

Bishop Trautman

In October 2009 BishopDonald Trautman of Erie diocese, Pennsylvania, gave a very insightful lecture at Catholic University of America. He is one of the few liturgical experts amongst the US bishops. He has chaired the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy.

It is worth noting that there have been many further changes to the texts since 2009.

Click below to read this important lecture.

Bishop Trautman McManus Lecture.

And Also With You - Paul Collins.

This fine background piece can be found at:

And Also with You - Paul_Collins

Implementation of the New Roman Missal.

This masterly article by Edward Foley, Liturgy Professor at CTU Chicago can be found at:

    Foley-CAL-presentation1

Open Letter to the US Catholic Bishops.

This critique was published in America Magazine by Fr. Anthony Ruff 14 Feb 2011 and can be found at:

 America Magazine - An Open Letter to the U.S. Catholic Bishops on the Forthcoming Missal

 

 

 

 

Change Challenges a Faith Review.

Eric Hodgens

19 March 2011

This talk was given to the Catholic Religious of Victoria Symposium on School Governance.

Three massive changes are challenging our Faith. Changes - in western culture, in the Australian Catholic sub-culture and in the Church;

Changes in Western Culture.

Western culture has experienced changes over the last few centuries. These include: the renaissance of the 16^th century, the scientific revolution led by Isaac Newtonian, the enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the evolutionary discoveries of Charles Darwinian, the psychology of Freud, Einstein’s theory of relativity, astronomy discoveries including the Big Bang. Over the same period history changed from story telling to a discipline where facts needed to be quantified and verified and sources listed. This changed historical discourse from being a work of the imagination more to being factual reportage and intellectual interpretation. Science and technology have created an explosion of knowledge. The growth of universal education and the expansion of wealth have led to a world with a new set of presumptions and certainties. The whole social order has moved from that of a small privileged class with a large under class to one of middle class privilege and wealth.  The American and the French revolutions are key watershed moments in replacing monarchy and nobility with liberal democracy. Authority has moved from the king to the people.

Implications.

The imaginative world of the catechism is no longer credible. E.g  Who made the world? Answer: God made the world - will not do in a universe where evolution is taken for granted. Who made me? Answer: God made me giving me a body and a soul – will not do in a world where sexual procreation is understood. Why did God make me? Answer: God made me to know him, love him and serve him here on earth and to be happy with him forever in heaven – will not do today. The imaginative world of today’s younger generation does not include a factual heaven and hell. Serving God in the sense of keeping his revealed law implies a down from the top authority which sits uncomfortably with a democratic principle that authority comes from a consensus of the populace. The authority of a clerical hierarchy which communicates and validates the truth of God’s revelation and God’s law does not fit into their imaginative cosmos. The older generation has been able to flip between the old imaginative world and the new. I suggest that the old cosmos is now simply fanciful for the younger generations.

Changes in Australian Catholic Sub-culture.

Mid 20^th century Catholic identity in Australia was marked by a strong sense of affiliation in a majority of Catholics. This showed in strong support for parish life and for the Catholic school. The principal and staff were either professional religious or strongly practicing Catholics. The students were Catholic with few exceptions. A majority of the school families were practicing Catholics – regular at Mass and the sacraments. The schools included religious practice in the official curriculum. They participated in the initiation of students into the sacraments of eucharist, penance and confirmation. Catholic doctrinal and moral catechesis was a major item in the curriculum. Evangelisation was taken as having already happened. The schools could rightly be described as confessional schools.

The scene is very different today. While the schools are still highly regarded for their education and their identification is Catholic, only a small proportion of the school families are now practicing regularly. Two generations of students have now passed through the Catholic school experience with a very weak sense of Catholic identity and very little interest in Catholic doctrine or morality. The schools score very well in the secular curriculum compared with State and other Private schools. The sacraments of initiation are still celebrated – but more as rites of passage than significant development of an internalised practice of faith. Broad cultural values are successfully inculcated but official Catholic morality, especially sexual morality, is often not accepted. This means that the catechesis in the schools is not being received.

If the schools are to remain Catholic aimed at forming students to be committed Catholics a new evangelization is needed. We can no longer just assume that the next generation will follow the allegiance of their parents or grandparents. And a prerequisite of effective evangelization is re-visiting the core Christian message and recontextualizing it in the light of the secular and pluralistic broad culture in which we live.

Changes in the Church.

The dramatic drop in the numbers of priests and religious is resulting in a consequent change to ministerial structures. This drop in recruiting is now 40 years on. The high rates of recruitment preceding 1968 have left a group still carrying on religious and priestly ministry. The problem is that this group is now over 60 years old and will all vanish from the ministerial work force over the next 15 years. Current recruitment rates will not change quickly if at all. While current church policy makes the drastic shortness of priests intractable, the education ministry can be and largely has been passed over to non-religious.

The departure of religious from religious owned schools is resulting in consequent changes in governance. Contemporary law and regulations demand greater accountability from our schools – administratively and financially. You are adapting to this challenge by the establishment of CRA and CRV and the creation of Personal Juridical Persons to be permanent owners of your schools when the dearth of religious peaks. This work is vital because the religious congregations and a hard core of the Catholic laity that they serve have a strong personal vested interest in making the schools educationally successful and identifiably Catholic.

Meanwhile, the Catholic sub-culture has loosened and become more open. The Catholic Church which 50 years ago enjoyed tight internal discipline and a united front policy is now multi-party with some being fractious over denied human rights, immersed in public scandals. Its leadership, still assuming monarchical entitlement, is to a large extent deauthorised.

The resurgence of reactionary, pre-conciliar forces within the Roman Curia has politically trumped the post-Vatican II development. They, in turn, have appointed a like minded episcopacy throughout the world. They have a small, but energized, group of lay supporters.

On the other hand amongst the priests and laity still committed to Vatican II the renewal is going on strongly in scripture, theology, history and the social sciences. This group is at odds with the hierarchy and going about its business at parish or small group level. Each of us has to make a choice as to where we stand in this divide.

The policy options are to reconfessionalise the schools if you belong to the reactionary group or to recontextualize them if you belong to the renewal group.

Two Mind Sets – Classic v. Evolutionary.

The theology which underpinned the catechesis that the older ones amongst us received was the neo-scholasticism which was revived at the end of the 19^th century and imposed by Leo XIII as the only theology to be taught in seminaries. It, in turn, drew on the scholastic theologians of the 12^th and 13^th centuries – predominantly St. Thomas Aquinas. Central to that movement was the return to the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. This theology set the climate in which other classical theologians such as St. Augustine were interpreted. One difficulty in our contemporary age is that these theologies assume a static, classic universe in which the nature of things is set at their creation. But since the renaissance and especially since Darwin’s theory of evolution, Einstein’s theory of relativity and the theory of the Big Bang, the universe is seen as always in motion, development and evolution. Pope Benedict XVI constantly attacks relativism in today’s culture. But relativity is the cousin of evolution. There is no static nature of beings in an evolutionary universe. The pope’s problem with the concept is understandable when you realize that he is a leading theologian in the Augustinian, and therefore classic, static tradition. John Paul II was thoroughly trained in neo-scholasticism. Both have called for a new evangelization in the light of the collapse of the last few decades. The theological background of both of these men explains how their vision of a new evangelization is to try to reconfessionalise rather than recontextualize. They would like to see Europe return to the confessional state with established religion as it was in the days of Christendom. This is simply not going to happen. Accommodation is necessary.

Different Modes of Discourse.

We are not very skilled at recognising the different modes of discourse in our language. We recognise that factual report is not the same literary form as story telling. Truth can be found in the correct reportage of facts; but it can also be found in the affective and imaginative impact of a good drama or story. The language of fact – logos in Greek - is distinct from the language of meaningful experience – mythos in Greek. Theology, especially when it is told through story, as in the gospels, is mythical discourse. It yields truth via the meaning of the story rather than its factuality. The scriptures can be very badly misunderstood unless we make this distinction.

Karen Armstrong is one of today’s clearest writers on this subject. Read her Short History of Myth and, more recently, The Case for God.

Response: Confessional, Secular, Values Focussed or Recontextualized?

The Enhancing Catholic School Identity Project being run by Louvain University and commissioned by the CECV, is a rich source of research on this question. It is the basis for this analysis.

The confessional school has been described above. It had its hey day in the middle of the 20^th century. By any criteria it is struggling today.  A common observation is that we have lost one or two generations from Catholic belief. The policy of the newly assertive reactionary group is to reconfessionalise the schools. This will only be effective for a niche reactionary market. Opus Dei is developing this model but their clientele is very limited. In the broader environment of the parish and our existing secondary schools it will not work. Like it or not, we have to develop a new model.

One option is to keep the school’s ownership and name but to give away evangelization and catechesis and simply follow the secular curriculum.

Another option is to follow the secular curriculum but to have a strong extra emphasis on good values and good behaviour.  Both of these are a departure from the primary purpose we had in establishing the schools.

The final alternative is recontextualization. Recontextualization is the term used for the re-articulation of Christian and Catholic belief in the light of the prevailing new realities of contemporary culture which is secular, pluralistic and liberal democratic. One takes the prevailing culture as a given. We presume that we cannot claim exclusive or even a primary right to have our faith view accepted. We have to enter into dialogue with this culture and present a case for Christian faith which we hope will be cogent.

The recontextualization option entails a total redesign of the RE curriculum. This necessitates firstly rearticulating our personal faith and theology.

Challenges entailed in Recontextualizing.

The challenges are:

•     to recontextualize our own personal faith;

•     to select, train and support school staff who are prepared to implement this recontextualization;

•     to develop a recontextualized curriculum of evangelization and catechesis.

The Challenge to Personal Faith.

The challenge for those of us who have been formally part of the Catholic enterprise in Australia is to re-evaluate our own faith in the light of the cultural and sub-cultural changes of the last few decades. We want the Catholic Church and the whole Catholic enterprise to succeed. But this conviction must be more than just a tribal gut reaction. The prevailing outside culture is secular and pluralistic. It is only when we can self-confidently proclaim our faith in this environment that it is solidly rooted. I am convinced that it is only in a secular environment that the option of faith is genuinely free. All of us know Catholics, both religious and lay, who are ideological Catholics. They subscribe to a platform rather than have a faith position. All of us have seen people move out of religious life and then abandon or significantly modify their faith position once out of the constraining environment.

Contemplating God Today.

The dominant images of God as creator, provider, lawmaker and judge must be revisited and rearticulated. Otherwise they do not make sense. The button pushing, string pulling God of the old school catechism and also the recent new Catechism of the Catholic Church must be replaced.

One problem with this type of catechesis is that God is heavily defined. Yet we cannot define or limit God who is the ultimately unknowable, infinite transcendent mystery. Any statement we make about God is limited by our human intellect, imagination and language. Recontextualizing inclines us to return to theologies which preceded the scholastic theology of the late medieval period and the accompanying resurgence of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy.

There has been a strong early tradition of apophatic theology - sometimes referred to as the via negativa (negative way). It works on the assumption that anything you say about God is necessarily limiting. The moment you make an assertion about God you have to deny it in the next breath. Read Karen Armstrong’s: “The Case for God” to get a good overview of theology through the centuries.

Jesus Christ.

We need a renewed theology of Jesus Christ (Christology) and of salvation (soteriology).  Christian belief centres on Jesus Christ. The path by which the earliest generations of Jesus’ followers came to believe in him as Christ, saviour, Son of God can be traced by examining the new testament documents chronologically. The earliest witness is St. Paul. His early epistles are dated to the early 50s – within 25 years of Jesus’ death. He presents Jesus as the authentic Christ or messiah of the Jews. Jesus is the Risen Christ and we can live in the Spirit if we believe in him. We become at rights with God by faith, not by the former Jewish way of keeping the law. Mark’s gospel is the next document 15 or 20 years after Paul’s first epistles. Mark see Jesus as Christ and Son of God. He presents Jesus as being invested with this status at his baptism by John the Baptist.  Matthew and Luke are 10 or 15 years later and present Jesus as being Christ the Lord from his conception and birth. The Fourth Gospel presents Jesus as the Eternal Word who was with God from the beginning – the pre-existent Son of God. Over a short 50 years the first two or three generations of believers had developed a very high Christology.

Faith.

The very concept of faith has to be revisited. Accepting nonsense as fact is not faith; it is stupid. Faith is not believing truths. Faith is believing in a meaningfulness to life and the universe which is perceived intuitively rather than by empirical explanation. It is approaching the experience of life with a new set of eyes and articulating the resulting vision using a different mode of discourse. The logical discourse which leads to accuracy and certainty in everyday life must be replaced with the discourse of mystery to articulate the ultimate realities. Logos as distinct from Mythos.

In the technical terms of this quest today we must recontextualize our faith.

This will affect our spirituality. Especially the way we envisage God. It will affect the way we pray. Some old sacred cows will have to make way. Among front runners in this re-articulation are the existentialist theologians Paul Tillich and Teilhard de Chardin. Their approach was implicitly followed by Vatican II especially in its Pastoral Constitution: Gaudium et Spes. Some theologians who will help in this recontextualization are Roger Haight: Towards a New Christology; Roger Lenaers: Nebuchadnezzar’s Statue - End of a Medieval Catholic Church; Philip Kennedy: A Modern Introduction to Theology – New Questions for Old Beliefs; Michael Morwood: Tomorrow’s Catholic.

Reaction.

There is a movement of strong fundamentalist reaction against this recent theological development. Some see their old certainties being attacked and want to re-group because they fear that the very basis of their belief system is likely to crumble. It is an understandable reaction – but a futile one because the changes which have made the recontextualization necessary are not going to go away. It is either change or fossilize – an ironic image since it is the observation of fossils which proved beyond doubt that our universe is not static but evolving. Fossils are the wake of evolution. For an insight into the fundamentalist reaction see Karen Armstrong’s: Battle for God.

Other Challenges.

The remaining challenges relate to developing staff who understand recontextualization and a curriculum of evangelization and catechesis for teaching students. If we recontextualize our own life of faith in the light of a realistic embrace of the culture of the secular world we will be able to see the way forward. The task is demanding but, to my mind, essential if we are to move to successful development of Catholic Schools in our contemporary world.

Waiting for a Bishop.

16 March 2011

Joe Grech, bishop of Bendigo, died suddenly in early in January. The Bendigo diocese - still called Sandhurst in Catholic Church circles - mourned his loss, appointed an Administrator and began a wait. The people and priests of Sandhurst do not know how long they are to wait, who they will get as the next bishop, how long it will take or even how the replacement process really works.

The bishop’s house in Bendigo is called Genazzano. So some wag privately published a Genazzano Cup Form Guide which listed twenty or thirty starters with comments on their chances and their odds. A very funny guide especially if you know the people who were listed as starters.

What is tragic is that such a guide would be amusing. The people most affected by this appointment are not even marginally involved in the selection process. The canon law principle: “what affects all should be decided by all” is mocked as the king makers jostle to get their man in. And their choice will be the man best suited to bolster their faction. Whether he is any good for Sandhurst is the last consideration.

Look at the disproportionate number of Opus Dei members or sympathisers appointed bishop over the last twenty years. And the Salesian Order gets inside running world wide indicating that Cardinal Bertone, the Salesian who is Papal Secretary of State, is a king maker. It is rumoured that Melbourne’s long wait for an Auxiliary Bishop replacement is due to Cardinal Pell’s vetoing Archbishop Hart’s nominee.

The keen observer can see which king maker is getting his boys up. It highlights the faction struggles both at middle and top level. What goes around comes around. In a recent top level factional fight Cardinal Pell was beaten by Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec in the race to head the Congregation of Bishops. That probably means Cardinal Pell is sentenced to another five years in Sydney. He turns 70 this year.

In 1936 the senior priests of Hobart diocese were key players in the election of Justin Simonds as their archbishop. Such participative consultation has since been usurped by episcopal factions. We now just take it as normal that these issues are decided by faceless men upstairs. A decision will be announced sooner or later and the Sandhurst faithful will be expected not only to accept the newly superimposed leader but to be grateful. The Patti Hearst syndrome is alive and well in the church.

Genuine consultation is an ethical pre-requisite in this day and age. Meanwhile the continuance of this system is disgraceful for the faithful of Sandhurst and even unfair on the new bishop – most likely unknown, unwanted and unloved.