As part of the much wider Queen’s Authority and Governance Project begun in 1996, 350 parish respondents, including twelve parish priests, from six dioceses in England, Scotland and Wales were interviewed in an exercise looking at ‘parish reality on the ground, especially with regard to pastoral strategy, organisation and communication’. I was asked to write a theological reflection on the reports from twelve of the parishes interviewed. This appeared as Some Theological Reflections on the Parish Reports in the volume, Diocesan Dispositions and Parish Voices in the Roman Catholic Church, edited by Noel Timms and published in 2001 by Matthew James Publishing Ltd. This whole project offered a very valuable resource to help the Roman Catholic Church in this island to reflect on how it was responding at parish level to the challenges of Vatican II. When I originally wrote this piece I had the impression that the project did not receive the attention it deserved. There have been considerable changes in parish life and organisation since that time. I am not convinced that all these changes are for the better. Perhaps we still have lessons to learn from this project.
My own reflection, with some minor alterations, is republished with the permission of the Trust which supported the project. It helps to throw light on the process of receiving Vatican II at parish level.
Introduction
To offer an adequate theological appraisal of the rich and varied life of twelve parishes in the space of a short article is impossible. All I can do is offer a few theological reflections based on my reading these parish reports. Others reading the reports might react quite differently and their theological reflections might bear little resemblance to my own.
The experience of these twelve parishes, as living cells of the Church, provide a very rich theological resource for all of us. Listening to their lived experience as parish communities should stimulate us in our theological thinking. I am not suggesting that this will result in the solution of all or even any of our problems in the field of pastoral theology. However, it should help us to isolate and articulate some of the important questions which need to be faced.
The stories of these parishes are so rich and the issues they raise are so varied and thought-provoking, the temptation for any theological commentator is to go off in all sorts of directions. I will try to resist that temptation and restrict my attention to certain basic issues related to the implications of Vatican II for parish life.
The Parish as a Community
The word ‘community’ occurs constantly in every one of the twelve parish reports. In their differing ways each of these parishes would claim to have grown and developed as a community, though some more strongly than others, over the years following Vatican II. Any Catholic reading these reports would, I am sure, be very struck by this development. In many cases it has been helped by the leadership of enlightened and inspirational parish priests; in some it has occurred even while the parish was experiencing extremely difficult problems with their parish priest.
However, their impressive community life raises a theological question. Although ‘community’ is the ‘in’ word to describe a Vatican II parish, it is not clear theologically what kind of community this should be. In the parishes under consideration, three different community dimensions, each having its foundation in Vatican II theology, are found. While evidence of all three of these dimensions can be found in each of the parishes, what makes an enormous difference between them is the emphasis given to one or other of these dimensions. That is where I see us facing a major theological question with regard to the nature and mission of the local Church.
The first of these ‘community’ dimensions is the Belonging dimension. The keywords here are welcome, affirmation, belonging and security. In the parishes where this dimension is given prime importance, a stranger attending the parish liturgy might comment, ‘See how these Christians love one another.’ Parishioners obviously care about each other. The general mood of the liturgy is to enable people to feel the warmth of God’s love. There is an emphasis on participation, everyone feeling at home and playing their part in the life of the parish community. This is the main purpose behind most of the parish groups, whether they are involved with the various liturgical ministries, including visiting sick members of the community, or whether they look after such mundane matters as cleaning the Church or financial and administrative issues. Parish ‘functions’ are seen as important since they help to foster a sense of belonging. A warm and welcoming priest who believes in collaborative ministry is an important element in this belonging dimension, even though, paradoxically, the parish studies show that where ‘belonging’ is a lived reality a parish can carry a priest with very profound personal problems, whether at the level of an abusive relationship or alcohol-addiction. The wider Church, especially the diocese, is perceived as hardly affecting local life, though the Pope and even the local bishop, can function as an important symbol of belonging. Even when the diocese does impinge on the local community, its impact tends to be felt as interference (as when a priest is moved) or as lack of effective pastoral management and concern (as in the case of priests with problems).
The second ‘community’ dimension could be called the Missionary Parish dimension. Here the emphasis is on the Gospel as a challenge to the parish community as a whole and how it should respond collectively to this challenge. The belonging dimension is still there, but it is a belonging for mission. The liturgy, still participative, is understood and celebrated as an experience of God’s love commissioning his followers to go forth as channels of his love. There is always a disturbing and uncomfortable side to it. The poor of this world, near and far, challenge the parish to a continuing conversion of their lifestyle and priorities. Justice and peace is the responsibility of the whole parish, not just a specific group. The priest’s role is that of a missionary inspirer (through the liturgy) and he may even represent the parish on various social action and civic communities. The wider Church fits more easily into this ‘missionary’ mindset since it is able to facilitate cooperative collective action between parishes for a whole variety of social concerns, at home and abroad. There will still be a plethora of parish groups. Many, if not most, of them will continue to serve the ‘belonging’ dimension. However, some will have a distinctive concern for issues related to justice and peace, at home or abroad. Their aim will be to ensure that the whole parish see such issues as an essential part of their life as a community. They will resist any tendency for the parish to see itself exclusively as a haven of safety, welcoming people adrift in a hostile world and offering them security.
The Christian in the World is the third ‘community’ dimension which is discernable in the parishes under consideration, though admittedly fairly minimally in most of them. Here the main emphasis lies on the liturgical, transformative and educational role of the parish, helping the individual parishioners to be sufficiently inspired and formed as Christians to play their part in whatever sphere of life they are involved – somewhat along the lines of the YCW ethos. This also means being involved in whatever is happening to improve the quality of life in their own neighbourhood, especially in partnership with organisations working with the poor and marginalised. Consequently, the multiplicity of parish groups and participation in them is not the criterion for a healthy ‘Christian in the world’ parish. Nevertheless, the belonging and participation dimension is still extremely important. At the liturgical assembly parishioners are not just isolated individuals. They all gather as members of the body of Christ and the liturgy is their community action. Here too the gospel that is preached is both disturbing and inspiring. Parishioners are called to be lay missionaries, commissioned to challenge all forms of injustice or established disorder affecting their community. Some parish groups may also be needed to help individuals develop skills such as social analysis and to initiate the process of developing local leadership in a demoralised community. I tried to describe this ‘Christian in the world’ dimension when I was writing about the Eldonian community in Liverpool in chapter two of my book, From a Parish Base.
All three of these dimensions have their roots in the theology of Vatican II and they are found to a greater or lesser extent in all the parishes surveyed. The question posed by these parish reports concerns the ‘mix’ of these three dimensions. The ‘belonging’ dimension is the one which is found most strongly in many, if not most, of the parishes; and in some cases its predominance in the mix is such that the other two are a very minor ingredient. In fact, in some cases, the ‘Christian in the world’ ingredient is barely discernable. I would hazard the guess that this is a fairly accurate picture of many parishes in Britain. Does this mean that what was described in Gaudium et Spes as one of the gravest errors of our time still has a grip on our Catholic life: ‘One of the gravest errors of our time is the dichotomy between the faith which many profess and their day-today conduct’ (GS, 43).
Could this be linked to some other burning questions affecting the Catholic Church today? Could it be one reason why many young people feel that our Church does not speak to them and their concerns? Maybe they are not interested in belonging to a community whose main focus is on the security and welfare of its members? Could it have anything to do with the diminishing numbers of adults attending Church? Is the spirituality presented in the parishes too Church-centred and failing to support and challenge them in their everyday lives?
Parishes feeling the lack of any coherent diocesan policy
The Dutch theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx OP coined the expression ‘contrast experience’. By that he meant a kind of collective cry of pain which erupts from people when they are faced by what is not in keeping with their deepest humanity. It is as though some very profound instinct within them is crying out: ‘This should not be. This is not how life should be lived.’ I get the impression that in many of the parishes interviewed the lack of any coherent pastoral policy on the part of the diocese is experienced as a kind of ‘contrast experience’. It provokes the cry of collective pain which can be detected in many of the reports. If this is the case, such a cry of pain would be extremely important theologically. It could perhaps be interpreted as God’s creative Spirit crying out from the grassroots of the Church and calling for renewal at local and diocesan level. It is as though people feel the ground is moving under their feet and know that something earth-shattering is happening all around them, not only in the Church but in society in general. They are deeply disturbed. Yet their faith enables them to cling on to the hope that in the midst of what could seem like the death throes of the Church as we know it, God’s Spirit might be urging us to discern signs of new life breaking through.
This cry of pain does not seem to saying to the diocesan authorities: ‘Tell us what to do.’ Rather it seems to be saying: ‘We are living in a situation of great upheaval and urgency. It is no good burying our heads in the sand or lamenting the times we live in. Let us seize this ‘kairos’ moment, this time of opportunity. We need to get together, all of us as local Church, to discern where we should be going and what we should be doing.’ This cry of pain has the feel of a movement of the Spirit calling for greater participation, consultation and involvement. In other words, the coherent diocesan policy of which people feel a deep need should not be something to be owned by priests and laity, once it has been determined by the-powers-that-be. Rather, in the very process of its determination and formulation there should be the widest consultation that is humanly possible. In other words, as many of the People of God as possible should also be on board for this communal act of discernment. This will not be easy to achieve, though the 1980 National Pastoral Congress could offer some pointers towards a viable process. It might also be useful to seek advice from those most highly skilled in the field of participative processes.
Parishioners are aware that the world all round them is changing rapidly and radically. It pains them to feel part of a Church which seems to be floundering in the midst of all this change and gives the impression that it does not know how to cope. What makes it all the more exasperating is that many of them have experience of coping with change in their professional and home lives.
Priests are one of the presenting problems highlighting the need for change within the Church – the diminishing number of priests and their advancing age and declining health. The main response being given to this problem is perceived by many lay people as being purely short-term. In the absence of a resident parish priest alternative arrangements are made (e.g. clustering groups of parishes) for providing Mass for people. It cannot be denied that for most parishioners one of their major concerns is that they do not lose their Sunday community Mass and that they have a priest to look to in times of need. Nevertheless, as seen already, whichever dimension of community is to the fore in a parish, the availability of a priest for Sunday Mass is only one element among many contributing to making a parish a healthy community according to the mind of Vatican II. That is why many Catholics today feel that this so-called ‘crisis situation’ is actually a time of opportunity. It offers the chance to turn the spotlight away from the priest and forces us to restate the question in terms of how the laity, in keeping with their baptismal vocation, can be more fully involved in the life and mission of the local Church.
However, talk about more comprehensive lay involvement will not be credible to people unless they see that their diocese is embracing such a development positively and enthusiastically. And that means adequate resource allocation. To many, including myself, that means making the budget for the training of priests merely one item, and not necessarily the most important item, within the budget for ministerial formation in general. It also means situating the formation of priests within the wider human context of formation for all ministries, full-time or part-time, thereby reducing the danger of priests seeing themselves as ‘men apart’. Instead they should be recognised as partners in collaborative ministry with the special responsibility of empowering their sisters and brothers to have confidence in their God-given gifts and in using them for the good of others and so for the glory of God.
BRIEF COMMENTS ON OTHER THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
ARISING OUT OF THE PARISH REPORTS
The non-reception by parishioners of certain elements of official Church teaching.
One by-product of the kind of participatively-discerned and coherent diocesan pastoral policy suggested above could be to help break the theologically unhealthy dichotomy between the parish (and individual parishioner) and the wider Church. If this is seen as a positive mutual relationship of correspondence, then the issue of widespread dissent on the part of faithful and committed Catholics (laity and priests) from official teaching could also be viewed more positively. No longer would it be dismissed by the powers-that-be as a dangerous instance of ‘doing your own thing’ leading to some kind of anarchic relativism. Rather it would be treated with the respect due to any seriously constructive critical stance of non-reception. In such instances of widespread non-reception, individual Christians, through sharing a common mind (conscientia) with others, would be contributing from their unique situations to the ongoing process in the Church of gradually appropriating the truth and how best to discern its application to complex life-situations. On this point Karl Rahner comments:
On any true understanding there is, even in the Catholic Church, an open ‘system’ in which the most varied factors (the ‘instinct’ of the faithful, fresh insights on the part of individual Christians and theologians, fresh situations that arise in a particular age, the new questions to which these give rise and much else besides) work together to throw fresh light upon the Church’s own awareness of her faith, and to produce a development of doctrine (Theological Investigations, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974 vol xi, p. 286).
The non-accountability of priests
Although most of the priests mentioned in the parish reports are clearly trying to be faithful to a form of priestly life and ministry in keeping with Vatican II, here and there are found hints that the bottom line tells a different story. In other words, in the end it is the priest who controls the parish agenda and he can make decisions as he thinks fit in all areas of parish life, whether liturgy, finance, administration or pastoral policy. It is true that the language of ‘co-responsibility’ and ‘collaborative ministry’ features largely in most reports. Yet, despite this language and even in parishes where great efforts have been made to develop collaborative ministry, there is no getting away from the power of veto of the parish priest. He has the last word.
Such a situation leaves any parish at the mercy of the whim of an incoming new parish priest who may decide to reverse much of what has been achieved by the parish in its efforts to implement the vision of Vatican II. The fruits of years of hard work and pastoral imagination undertaken jointly by the former parish priest and the main body of the parish can be scuttled by a mere dictate of the incoming priest. Incidentally, this problem is not restricted to parishes. There have been some tragic instances of dioceses where the achievements of the inspired and collaborative leadership of a former bishop have been wellnigh destroyed by the appointment of a new Ordinary who is utterly opposed to the direction in which the diocese had been moving. The dismantling of the creative pastoral initiatives of Cardinal Arns and Archbishop Helder Camara are two tragic cases in point.
Coming back to the parish level this emphasises the importance of a Parish Mission Statement which has been decided upon and owned by the parish as a whole and which any incoming priest is obliged to honour. Obviously, such a parish mission statement needs to be consistent with any agreed diocesan pastoral policy and both should be in line with the overall mission of the Church and grounded on sound principles of pastoral theology. Such a diocesan mission statement should be agreed upon only after extensive consultation and collaborative decision-making throughout the whole diocese. Obviously, a parish or diocesan mission statement is not something static, engraved on stone. It will always be open to revision in the light of new situations to be faced, or deepening theological or pastoral insights, or even to enable the parish or diocese to incorporate the special gifts of some new individuals or groups who have come on the scene and who offer a rich pastoral resource for the parish or diocese.
There seems to be a growing awareness in the Church that, unless priests are open to some kind of accountability, the Vatican II notion of co-responsibility, consultation and collaborative ministry will ring very hollow. Even programmes of self or peer appraisal, though important and greatly to be encouraged, still leave something to be desired. An important part of the leadership role of a bishop is to support, encourage and inspire his priests. But that must not be to the detriment of his oversight of the pastoral care of the people. In some instances, hopefully rare, the bishop will need to take whatever action is needed to make sure that serious harm is not done to the faith of parishioners and their pastoral welfare by the gross insensitivity, pastoral ineptitude or sheer ignorance of a priest in their parish. This is delicate ground. However, the safeguards against the professional misconduct of priests should not be any less rigorous than, for instance, in the teaching and medical professions.
The issue of democracy in the Church
In a number of the parish reports the phrase, ‘of course, the Church is not a democracy’, occurs in one form or another. Such a statement should not be allowed to pass without comment. It can be based on very questionable theological assumptions. Edward Schillebeeckx concludes the third and final volume of his magisterial work on Christology with a chapter entitled, ‘Towards Democratic Rule of the Church as a Community of God’. He argues that the Church should reflect our highest level of human societal experience. That would imply that today the Church should reflect democratic ideals and practices much more than those of a monarchy, autocracy or oligarchy. He asks:
Why in the past this Church government could with great assurance take over the civil forms of feudal government and later those of an absolute monarchy, while being completely closed to modern forms of government and rule, especially democrative forms of authority (Church: The Human Story of God, (SCM, London, 1990, p. 220).
The fact that authority in the Church community is different from authority in civil society does not automatically exclude its democratic exercise. Schillebeeckx writes:
‘Not lording it over’ does not exclude democracy! Why then should the Church not be able to democratize its model of government and rule without in so doing harming its subjection to the word of God? As if an authoritarian government went better with the subjection of the Church to God’s word than a democratic government, in which the voice of the whole people of God is listened to more clearly and accurately! (p. 219).
He even argues that the democratic exercise of authority in the Church seems more in keeping with our understanding of the Church today than is the monarchical model we are currently living with. Similar thinking to this is expressed in a teaching document from the bishops of Quebec, Annoncer l’Evangile dans la culture actuelle au Quebec, (Montreal, Fides, 1999):
Our culture is profoundly marked by the spirit of democracy. Democratic society values the participation of all. The democratic spirit builds a new relationship to the truth. The Church is to proclaim the Gospel in a relevant way. It is not sufficient to insist that the Church is not a democracy, even if that statement is correct. Integration into the Church in a democratic society leads to a new relation to authority and a different manner of proclaiming the Gospel. What is required is a certain degree of participation and a careful listening to all the voices that want to be heard. Nothing can be imposed simply by authority: there is no single word (from abridged English text in The Ecumenist, Winter 2000, pp. 1-3).
The assertion, ‘the Church is not a democracy’ can be used to justify the theologically untenable position that lay people (and priests too) do not have any right to have their views heard. This can lead to a very watered-down version of consultation and can suggest that there is no need to follow the best available advice and expertise on the processes of consultation. It can also produce a version of lay-involvement which is much more one of benevolence rather than empowerment. The Brazilian poet-bishop Pedro Casaldaliga once said: ‘I don’t want the Church to be a democracy. I want it to be something better than a democracy. I want it to be a community.’ I understand Schillebeeckx to be saying that a community in which authority is exercised through democratic processes offers the ‘best practice’ of being community available to us today, unlike a community in which authority works more autocratically.
At present women are virtually excluded from the main corridors of power within the Church. Even in the rare instances in which they hold important positions of authority, they are still subject to the final word coming from parish priest or bishop or Vatican congregation. This is due to the link between orders and jurisdiction. Perhaps the way many women’s groups, including women religious, go about their decision-making has a lesson for the Church. Their fidelity in following processes designed to help achieve consensus is reminiscent of the custom in some tribes in Africa and other cultures. It might even be preferable to Western democracy and could be a gift which Church authorities might receive from women’s groups within and beyond the Church. Such a way of exercising authority might have even more compelling ‘intrinsic theological reasons’ in favour of its being followed within the Church.
The question – ‘Are you in favour of married priests or women priests?’
This question can raise the hackles of many people. It can touch some very deep and unconscious prejudices within us. In some strange way, associating the priesthood with women and also with marriage seems to touch some unresolved problems regarding sexuality in some people. This is particularly the case with some Roman Catholics, but it also affects people in other Churches, as is clear from the resistance to the ordination of women well beyond the confines of the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is surprising how much support for married priests and women priests comes out in the parish reports.
Yet I must confess that I feel slightly uneasy about the question as posed in the survey. I wonder whether it might have been more helpful pastorally to have approached the issue from a different angle. There is no doubt in virtually all the reports that the priest plays a key role in the parish community. The impression is given that the interviewees could not envisage a parish community without the involvement of a priest in some way or other. Given such a strong belief in the priestly ministry, perhaps a more open question from a pastoral point of view might have been: ‘How are we to ensure that this ministry continues?’ That offers the possibility of viewing married priests and women priests not as a problem or a threat but as a possible, even desirable, solution to a very real need.
The disaffection of young people from the parish
This certainly raises a major question for the Church. Given the disaffection of young people on such a wide scale, is the Church as we know it going to survive? However, here again, perhaps Church survival should not be starting point for our self-questioning as Church. The Church does not exist for itself. It is a servant-Church whose mission is to help others see a meaning to their lives through an encounter with the living Word of God. The first question posed to us by the disaffection of young people, therefore, should not be one about the survival of the Church. It should be more at the level of: Are we failing in our mission to serve young people? In other words, are we in danger of too readily assuming that the problem lies with the young people? Do we too easily assume that the basic problem lies in their having become slaves to the consumer society with its spotlight on instant gratification, whether through drugs, alcohol, sex or fashion, with the result that they have no time to stop and think about the deeper things in life?
Without denying that the modern world is a very enticing and distracting place for young people (and, at times, a very cruel place too), do we in the Church need to ask ourselves whether it could be the Church, not young people, that is the problem? Could it be that the Gospel we are presenting to them lacks the inspiration and attraction of the ‘the mind of Christ’ as specifically appealing to young people? Could it be that the liturgy we offer them says nothing to them? When they reject it as ‘boring’, are they being unspiritual, or are they saying that it is not in tune with the kind of spirituality they are searching for? Is this a problem just for young people? When they reject the Church’s moral teaching as ‘out of touch’, are they simply flaunting their immorality or amorality, or might they be saying that they do not find that the Church whether in its teaching or its community-life, offers them a challenge which they find exciting and which gives them a dream and a vision of a life worth living? Perhaps what is needed is not a mission to young people to convert them, but rather putting more effort into listening to young people and into trying to learn from them about the meaning of the Gospel as they see it for today’s world.