Following on from his commentary yesterday Fr Daniel Donovan today shares the approach he used recently when called in to assist a parish community when their priest left as a result of feeling called to marriage. The approach Fr Donovan used was modified version of the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross process that is used for bereavement counselling.

Developing a Process for Use in a Parish…

Toward the end of July 2007, it was decided to have a meeting in the parish from which my friend had left. The purpose of the evening was to provide the community with a voice so that it could begin to move toward a new beginning. I was asked to convene the evening and used the Kubler –Ross process but adapted to a Parish situation. The format for the evening involved three focus questions:

Photo of Dr Kubler-Ross by Ken Ross taken from the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross website: www.elisabethkublerross.com

• How do you feel about the recent events in the parish?
• How do you see the parish moving forward?
• What recommendations might you develop to go forward to the diocese?

These questions were compatible with the Kubler-Ross process and to be non-threatening to the diocesan structures.

Structure of the Evening…

It was a cold July night and the parish hall lacked heating. About seventy parishioners attended. After a brief welcome by the administrator of the parish, the group were invited to say together the Serenity Prayer.

There was a general introduction to the work of the night by the convener who stressed that it was designed to provide a forum for the community to address the three focus questions which were listed on a prepared hand out with a brief outline of the Kubler-Ross' stages. It was suggested that the process would facilitate group discussion and ensure that the discussion remained on task. The groups when assigned would go to a particular table and would select a group leader and a secretary to record responses to the focus questions. Each table had ample supply of butchers' paper and textas. The group leader would report back to the general group at the end of the evening. A time had been set for the discussion of each focus question and it was stressed the importance of adhering rigidly to that time frame. While each person had time to speak in the group, no one was compelled to speak. Finally, the work was to be "from the people" and the priests who were present would not be participating in the groups. Ten smaller groups were then created and these sent to the table specified by their group number. Again the groups were reminded that the discussion was to focus on the three questions and their response(s) to the current crisis of leadership in the parish. There was a final opportunity for questions or to address any uncertainties about the task then the goups were set to work for an hour.

Discussion was orderly but animated. It was interesting to see the dynamics in each group as young and seniors, men and women, religious and lay, married and single were engaged in discussion as the local Church. Every person was able to speak and there was great respect and empathy within the groups. I was surprised by how closely the process in the groups reflected my own personal struggle as described above. There was a wonderful balance of approaches in the groups and it was interesting to see a group of older people listening with rapted attention to a young man of sixteen speaking of his faith journey. This was the Church in action and at its best.

There was in the group a whole gamut of emotions identified and validated. There was a real sense of anger. Generally, there was anger about the law of celibacy. But there was another type of anger which focussed on working for a more committed community rejecting the gossip and scuttlebutt which had been spread around the parish and had even been fed to the media. There was a real sense of one-ness and pride in their faith. The process was cathartic within the whole group.

During the general reporting, participants sipped tea or coffee and listened intently. Unfortunately, it was getting late and some parents had come with small children so the discussion after the report was shortened. The principal of the local Catholic school collected the written reports so that printed versions might be made available for all parishioners. There was a resolve to continue discussions within the weeks and months ahead.

It was my final task to go through the answers and to judge if the outcomes set for the exercise had been achieved. A report was then forwarded to the parish for their ongoing discussion and follow up. Through personal contact with members of the parish, people have praised the evening and the process for "clearing the air" and "addressing parish healing in an adult manner". Far from undermining the role of the bishop, the people had a sense of empathy with the bishop and his efforts to provide for their community.

Conclusion…

Over the last few months, within the Archdiocese of Sydney, there have been at least three situations which have required a process to resolve pastoral crises. The reality is that Archdiocese and dioceses still lack a process for addressing the people's issues. Parishes are still haemorrhaging, as good people withdraw their gifts and talents from their local community because the official Church leaders lack such a process. What the people are asking for is to be listened to and have their feelings validated with a pastoral response. Bishops are unable to be across all issues in every community in the dioceses and therefore should welcome the input of the people.

Parishioners feel fobbed off by diocesan bureaucracy which fails to provide them with a response. Recently, a young lady complained to a diocese about the lack of compassion which she and her family had experienced on the occasion of her father's funeral. The letter drew a response from the Chancellor (of the diocese) who expressed his regret at the family's experience. Then the bureaucratic waffle took over, her letter would be passed onto the vicar for clergy and that the committee for the ongoing education of the clergy would be approached to develop courses "assisting priests to deal sympathetically with bereaving families". Is it any wonder that the people are fed up and are rejecting the "big Church" model?

While the process outlined above is not perfect and is not the only possible way of approaching the concerns of God's people, it has the advantage of addressing the issue and empowering the community to work toward healing. Somehow the Church is either unable or unwilling to deal directly with the concerns of the laity in a simple forthright process which is clear, concise and by passes the Church bureaucracy.

It is clear that in the years ahead priests will continue to leave the active ministry and communities will continue to grieve their loss. Pope Benedict, in July, will text daily messages of hope to pilgrims gathered in Sydney for World Youth Day, but where are the messages of hope for the parishes? There is a real urgency to listen to the people. The time has come to abandon the big Church model with its stagnant bureaucracy and clerical centricity this model needs to be replaced with the theology of the people of God and its unity "in Christ" (Gal 3:28).

Fr Daniel Donovan is a lecturer in the School of Religious Education at the Strathfield campus of ACU National. He has a long history in the education of primary school teachers in Religious Education. He has given special attention to teaching beliefs and values courses, and to field supervision of students in practicum. Further details about his research interests and contact details can be found on the ACU National website at rel-ed.acu.edu.au/ren2/staff.html.

What are your thoughts on this commentary? You can contribute to the discussion in our forum.

©2008 Daniel Donovan

[Index of Commentaries by Fr Daniel Donovan]