Like many older Catholics George Ripon has found himself increasingly frustrated watching the steady exit out of the pews as the episcopal leadership turns increasingly inward and only interested in responding to the needs of those who seek certitude in preference to truth and consolation in the past in preference to providing effective responses to the real challenges of today. In today's commentary he puts forward a set of proposals that might provide the basis of an effective and pastoral response to the looming crisis in this country where, in the space of a further decade or two, there will simply not be enough ordained priests to go around. In a related article (see box in main commentary) we provide extensive coverage of a major development in the United States where parishioners in 18 dioceses have taken it into their own hands in an unprecedented appeal to the Vatican regarding Parish closures.

Tomorrow's (Priestless) Parish...

With no indication that Church authorities are doing anything to increase the number of priests for church ministry I think the time has come to start planning for the parish of the future, priestless. This does not imply a lack of priestly service for Mass and the sacraments but it does mean that the local Catholic community would become self-governing. The parish would of course remain in communion with the local hierarchy in ways considered later in this article. As a parishioner in the Archdiocese of Melbourne I draw on local experience and conditions

At present we have 312 parishes and most of these were established in the twentieth century. Catering for 200 to 400 (?) families they were located in a way that the majority of Catholics could walk to church. This was important at a time when attendance at Sunday Mass was "compulsory" Now with transport it's possible within say, 15 minutes to get to several local churches, this is a help at a time when so many traditional Masses have "disappeared". So what is our future? As I see it we are forced, by default to the reality of priestless parishes. To those in doubt, consider the following. Despite some extra vocations will we ever get back to having 312 parish priests in our Melbourne Archdiocese, not to mention assistant priests in bigger parishes? Rome's present response through the bishops is to keep asking serving priests to adopt a second parish. Here I must say I have great admiration for the priests who have accepted this role. But no one gets any younger. The real problem here is the desire of Rome to maintain control at any cost. Hence the need for a new start.

Like a "Pub with no Beer"...

To my (older) generation the concept of a priestless parish is a bit like the "Pub with no Beer". To arrive for Sunday Mass not knowing who might emerge from the sacristy would be unheard of in the good old days. But that's life to-day. Also if we don't start the debate now we may well have another Rome-type solution imposed on us. Officially Rome seems to see the parish as dependant on the priest rather than as a community of the People of God. In the early days of shared priests the term "Partnership" became the buzz word, Normally the word impiies progress but in the Church it was a euphemism for the inability of the Church to provide enough parish priests even after clear indications of the problem dating back to the seventies. Recently I heard a priest say that the next step would be merging parishes. I had to say that if our parish were in the firing line there would be "mayhem". How about a parish survey as to what the people wanted? silly me!! After merging, one church could become a chapel-of-ease causing the bean counters in the Diocesan Office to consider closing the church and selling the site to a rich developer. Just look at the Uniting Church. In the last few days I read a report from Cleveland Ohio that the local bishop proposed merging 41 churches into 18 parishes and closing 29 churches. In Buffalo 8 parishes have been closed and the churches sold, two other churches have been sold to Buddhist congregations and a further 31 churches are up for sale (Catholic World News). So don't think it could not happen here.

Archbishop Frank Little did try and plan for the future
but others scuttled his plans...

Related story from the U.S. Catholica has also received from the organisers of an appeal to the Vatican in America a number of press reports and copies of their appeal to the Vatican against parish closures that are now underway in eight different US dioceses. As The Tablet article below indicates this is an "unprecedented move". At the end of this short news report we provide links to the pdf copies of a summary document of the Appeal to the Vatican and also a copy of the much longer (22 page) Appeal Document.

Threatened parishes ask Vatican to mediate by Robert Mickens THIRTY-ONE parishes that have resisted being forcibly closed in eight different US dioceses have formally ask the Vatican’s Secretariat of State to mediate between them and local bishops in order to keep their parishes open and “develop a new model of parish structure”. In an unprecedented move, the group this week asked the Secretariat of State to suspend reviews of American parishioners’ appeals against parish closures that are currently under way at two Vatican offices – the Apostolic Signatura and the Congregation for the Clergy. Instead, it wants the Secretariat of State to make the diocesan bishops “enter promptly into a Vatican-mandated mediation” directly with the parish representatives. The group predicted that there would be adverse consequences for the Church if the Vatican’s top office refused to mediate, notably lawsuits and the emergence of schismatic movements through “neo-Catholic faith communities”. The protesting parishes – which are in the Archdioceses of Boston, New York and New Orleans and the Dioceses of Allentown, Buffalo, Cleveland, Scranton, and Springfield in Massachusetts – were to hand-deliver their joint 20-page request to the Vatican on Tuesday. “We believe that in America our Church is at the ‘tipping point’ of permanent and irreversible damage,” the letter said. The signatories claimed to be mainstream Catholics “with no agendas other than safeguarding their faith communities”. Some of these parishes, specifically Boston, have been peacefully occupied for more than four years. The signatories said they were seeking the Secretariat of State’s mediation as a last resort after their bishops had rebuffed all attempts at dialogue. Boston’s Cardinal Seán O’Malley has promised not to take final action against the occupiers until receiving the ruling from the Apostolic Signatura on nine parishes that appealed to stay open. The signatories of the letter said that the office’s prefect, Archbishop Raymond Burke, would most likely rule against the “Boston Nine” given his own “diocesan track record” towards Catholics who challenge parish closures.

LINK to NCR coverage of this story LINK to CNS coverage of this story LINK to Summary Document of Appeal sent to the Vatican LINK to Full Document of Appeal (22pp) sent to the Vatican

So back to our new pariah. In the seventies and eighties as assistant priests moved on and later Pariah Priests got a second parish the faithful came knocking at the presbytery door, offering help. Initially this involved answering the door and the phone, counting and banking the cash, doing the books and paying the bills etc. These tasks had previously been done by the parish priest, his assistant or a resident housekeeper. Later this activity was formalised and the role of "Pastoral Associate" was born. Aware of the "winds of change" the late, Archbishop Frank Little set up the Catholic Research Office for Pastoral Planning (CROPP). Frank Little, a great supporter of Vatican II and a good listener, sought through CROPP the views of the people on the future of the church. Later the Pastoral Leadership Task Group did a lot of work on exploring different models for parishes in the years ahead. These models drew heavily on the role of Pastoral Associates (not Deacons) supporting the diminishing number of available priests. At this stage control still remained with the clergy.

Some 15 years on, we have no additional priests and our clergy are now older. Less people attend week-end Masses and the laity want answers about the future.* Hence the need to "bite the bullet" and seriously consider the priestless parish. Rome, concerned with the need for control would be reluctant, however, with a carefully designed model honouring the "Magisterium", authorities could, in the spirit of Vatican II, come to accept a more open church. It would need working out with genuine local consultation and I see something like the following:

The proposal from George Ripon:

On the departure of the PP the pariah would ask the bishop for a replacement, if one were available, well and good although local vetting should not be ruled out. If a replacement were not available the parish would be entitled to apply for "Independent Status". To continue sharing priests only puts off the evil day. Before reviewing the relationship between the parish and the Diocese lets look at the profile of the new priestless parish.

It would have a Pastoral Council (s)elected from within with a minimum of, say, eight members including a chairperson, a treasurer and a secretary.

A Leader/Spokesperson/Administrator, this could be the chairperson? It would have a Finance Committee as required by Canon Law An independent accountant/auditor for oversight on finances. A Maintenance Committee to draw on local skills and save costs.

A Secretarial Group in the Church Office dealing with correspondence, bill-paying, banking, weekly notices, the priest diary etc..

A School Board.

The above would be essential to identify the parish bearing in mind the absence of a priest. In addition the parish would have many of the traditional groups. These would include St. Vincent de Paul, Liturgy, Caring, RCIA, Altar Society, Social Justice, Ecumenical, Meditation and others.

The essential features as outlined above would be embodied in a Constitution to be agreed between the local perish and the diocesan authority. This would reflect the independence and responsibility of the parish and it could be the model for all priestless parishes. The Pastoral Council would have regular meetings with an AGM annually for reports and the election of officers. Copies of the annual reports would be submitted to the Diocesan Office with the names of the principal officers. If required the parish would accept auditing of parish accounts by an independent auditor on behalf of the diocese.

Church property would remain under the "ownership" of the Diocesan Trust but could not be disposed of without the consent of the parish. In the event of a sale the parish would have first call on the proceeds if required for other perish plans. Reasonable levies would be payable to the diocese for their own purposes accepting the reality that with diminishing numbers parish income could be less than in previous times. With goodwill on both sides a new pattern of "Church" could be born.

With careful preparation and consultation the benefits would be great. Appropriately invited, parishioners would come forward offering their services according to their talents. The following listing is for a start but its not exhaustive:

Once established it would be up to the parish to determine its destiny as a community of faith without the direct involvement of a priest. For Sacramental Services access to a priest would be available. In the early days this might be from a neighbouring priest with only one parish. Later as more perishes became priestless young priests could be grouped and rostered to provide, as required, services to the priestless parishes. Again these are matters to be determined after consultation between the perishes and the Diocesan authorities.

Similar to the proposals of the Pastoral Leadership Task Group...

Archbishop Frank Little – a great listener!

While we are looking at "sea change" this proposal is similar to the work that was being done in the early nineties by the Pastoral Leadership Task Group (PLTG). This proposed the extensive involvement of Pastoral Associates (not Deacons) in the daily affairs of the parish. Sadly with the resignation of Archbishop Little his successor ended the involvement of the PLTG even though the work had just begun.

I realise that a change like this will be hard for Rome to accept but do they have an alternative? If so let's hear it.

Having-considered the matter I can see great benefits arising from the local community running its own parish. Nothing inspires people more than working together on a major challenge like this. Its visionary and as I see it appropriate for our times. As it develops much of the work would be voluntary apart from modest stipends for secretarial workers.

With so much needing to be done it's hard to know where to stop. However to quote from a colourful Soviet leader why not Glasnost and Peristroika — loosely translated: Openness and Renewal. So lets re-open John XXIII's "windows" and update our Church with genuine consultation with the People of God (in the pews).

*See the attached pdf copy of a letter dated 7 April 1997 sent to George Ripon by Fr Maurie Cooney, Director of the Catholic Research Office for Pastoral Planning explaining some of the changes in the wake of the departure of Archbishop Frank Little. www.catholica.com.au/gc2/occ/pdf/CROfPP_ltr_170497.pdf

IMAGE CREDITS:
The background image used for the headline has been sourced from www.jamd.com, a service provided by Getty Images.

George Ripon, now in retirement is a parishioner at St. Patrick's Church, Murrumbeena in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. Involved with the local Deanery Group, he has in his own words, interfered in all areas of parish affairs since coming to Australia from the UK 40 years ago. He is a keen supporter of Vatican II and Church reform.