Dear friends,

	David Tacey

Over the weekend one of our readers sent me a copy of a submission that her parish had prepared for an Archdiocesan survey back in 1993. The context of her sending the document to me was Fr Daniel Donvan's commentary last Friday and her recollection from more than 20 years work in this parish that "our theme song was always that the problem facing the church was leadership." In light of Fr Dan's commentary, and yesterday's commentary by Fr Kevin Murphy — as well as other recent discussions in this place about the views of Sr Joan Chittister and Dr David Tacey, I think it is very interesting reading over this document that was prepared 14 years ago. I won't name the parish where this submission was generated partly in that I'm not sure about the permissions involved with this document but as much in that I believe the words do stand in their own right and probably have stronger value if the particular parish community remain anonymous.

Self-evidently from reading these submissions you'll soon appreciate that the people who put the submission together were educated lay-Catholics with a keen appreciation of the new spirituality that had been encouraged by the Second Vatican Council. Wouldn't it be interesting if someone were able to collect the people who put this together again today and get their reactions as to what happened to the "Tomorrow's Church" initiative?

In a sense Vatican II was a global exercise in trying to imagine "Tomorrow's Church". How well have we managed our stewardship of the legacy that was given to us in the outcomes of the Second Vatican Council? As you read this submission put together by a group of anonymous but reflective and intelligent adults in Melbourne in 1993 do you detect that the spirit of Vatican II was still vibrant? If one were to conduct a similar exercise in the Church today would one find a similar level of enthusiasm, excitement and optimism that we had some chance of creating a Church of the future that could respond to our real spiritual needs? My own growing sense is that there have been so many disappointments over the last 40 years that few people even bother to dream anymore about the hopes raised by the Second Vatican Council. The events of the last few weeks in Rome, first with the Motu Proprio on the Tridentine Mass and then with the statement on the one true Church, have ended up being a significant turning point. What I pick up from the feedback available on many sites is that the documents achieve little in the positive directions they were aimed at achieving progress in but on the negative side of the coin they have substantially dented internal morale within the institution. The dream is not dead but the feeling I pick up is that these have been significant signs for many more people to go an a lengthy sabbatical while they await the return of more favourable winds.

Happy reading and I hope this might generate plenty of feedback in our forum.

In July 1993 our parish made a submission to the central authorities in response to a process which took place throughout the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The process was known as "Tomorrow's Church". Below are extracts from our submission which resulted from discussions with parishioners.

Question 1: From your reflection on the document, what do you see as the five most important challenges for leadership in the Church of Melbourne over the next decade?

1. To recognise that the priestly role (as distinct from the leadership role) can be carried out very effectively by a wide range of people of varying ages, both men and women, already living in our parishes. There is a need to give further formation to these persons and to seek ways of ordaining/commissioning such persons on a short-term or long-term basis.
2. To recognise that the role of parish leader requires that the person possess a broad constellation of professional competence and personal qualities, and to seek out and prepare people who have the pre-requisites for this ministry. Some people would possess the qualities to be both priestly and parish leader.

Question 2: What are the implications of these challenges for your parish?

Our parish is already part of the way to experiencing new ways of shared ministry. We have a team approach, and structures are in place to carry on in the absence of the priest. However, we see no viable alternative to having a resident priest(s) (in the event of changing the criteria for priesthood) in order to be a Eucharistic community.

…A preferred option for us would be to have a priest who did not want to be parish leader but who would reside in the parish (not in the presbytery) and delegate the leadership to a lay person. It would be necessary for both the priest and the lay leader to be comfortable with this arrangement.

Question 3: What do you believe are the characteristics of effective parish leadership?

People who exercise leadership…

1. should demonstrate by their behaviour that they are striving to witness to the vision of God's Kingdom as outline in "Tomorrow's Church", pp.2-4;
2. should have demonstrated before being appointed that they possess the skills necessary for the exercise of leadership; for example, communication skills; community-building skills; decision-making processes; delegation skills; participative leadership skills;
3. should be competent to maintain appropriate management and administration procedures;
4. should be mature and possess common sense - one who has "lived life" in the workplace and family; who is emotionally and psychologically stable and can demonstrate a capacity to form effective relationships.
5. Must be able to work effectively as a team member.

Other comments submitted:

1. Open up sacramental roles to a wide range of suitable people with no discrimination in terms of sex, marital status and age. Varying terms of appointment.
2. In the short-term, consideration to be given to those pastoral workers who minister to the sick and hospitalised to have the faculty of administering the sacrament of Healing. Lay ministers of marriages could be introduced. Lay funeral celebrants could be extended.
3. It is relatively easy to find suitable people in our communities to celebrate the sacraments if the requirement of male and celibate is changed.
4. The local community should be involved in any decisions affecting the community; for example, the appointment of a priest (s) or lay leader. A discernment process should be put in place so that the needs of the community can be adequately assess and taken into account.
5. The authorities should carefully review the criteria applied in appointing lay leaders who are seen as part of the solution to the challenges facing the church. These are the people who will play a most significant part in determining which direction the local community will take - for better or for worse. These are the people who particularly need to be "ordained" or "commissioned".
6. The process by which principals are appointed to schools could serve as a model for the appointment of leaders in parishes.
7. No matter how competent a pastoral leader might be, it is the celebrant of the weekend Masses who has the most effect on the community - for better or for worse. Given that, in the present situation, we will still only have access to the same pool of priests, and given that some of these priests are the reason why people have ceased coming to church, one could only be pessimistic about the future. Changing models will not solve the root problems.
8. All personnel appointed to public roles within the church should have appropriate professional competence and suitable personal qualities.

Brian Coyne is the editor and publisher of Catholica Australia.

We welcome your thoughts in response to this commentary in our forum.

Brian Coyne can be contacted at: Brian Coyne <editor@catholica.com.au>

©2007 Brian Coyne

[Brian's Take Archive]