Among the many efforts to galvanise the Church since the New Pentecost initiatives of the 1960s and including the schemes designed to overcome the critical shortage of priests, one characteristic remains common. I refer to the unquestioned assumption that the good news can only be proclaimed by a Church deeply rooted in patriarchy and clericalism.
When Cardinal Martini spoke of the Church being 200 years out of date, it is fair to assume that he had in mind patriarchy and excessive clericalism. The twenty-first century is devoted to the spread of democratic institutions, to liberation and human rights, and to sexual equality. A Church which remains wedded to hierarchy and elitism will find it hard to develop true dialogue with contemporary life.
If one searches for evidence of some dynamism midst the ecclesial embers, one might see organisations such as Pax Christi, Justice and Peace groups, Cafod as signs of hope. Yet it is no secret that clerical support for these groups is lukewarm at best. Priests seem to fear lay leadership not officially commissioned by the hierarchy and, of course, leadership is often in the hands of women. Small wonder then that many Catholics devote their time and energies to organisations beyond the Catholic fold. It is clear that, in the Catholic community the hierarchical and centralising principles are paramount. Initiatives must either come from or be approved by the priests.
An illustration of what happens at diocesan level is evidenced in The Tablet (22 November). The Limerick diocese has begun a synod following a quite open agenda proposed by Fr Paul Philibert. The whole thing has an atmosphere of openness to change and renewal and a genuine dialogue among equals regarding a missionary future. The same issue contains a report from the same diocese of a talk given by Cardinal Burke, the traditionalist US churchman, in which he condemns the work of the Extraordinary Synod and its possible departure from past attitudes to the Eucharist and divorce. In his view, change is simply not an option. Is the Church to allow initiatives for change to be shipwrecked by such intransigent clerics in positions of authority?
My first reaction to the Limerick Synod is that it will follow a tradition of synods where all authority and final decrees are made by the bishop. So despite the crucial and fundamental questions proposed by the Facilitator, radical change is unlikely to occur.
In the same way the process begun in Hexham and Newcastle seems tied to adjustments to cope with a crisis in priestly ordinations whilst preserving a skeleton of parochial ministry.
Yet the message of Pope Francis was clear in Evangelii Gaudium. “I invite everyone to be bold and creative in this task of rethinking the goals, structures, style and methods of evangelization in their respective communities.”
I would urge Fr Philibert and Fr Jim O’Keefe of Hexham and Newcastle to “put out into the deep” (Duc in altum). Synods need to ask, Why has the level of priestly vocations collapsed so dramatically since 1980s? And why has Mass attendance in Hexham and Newcastle shrunk from 100,000 to 40,000 over the same period?
What further evidence do we need of fundamental dysfunction in the institution? It saddens me on this feast of Christ the King that we should be obsessed by exercises in diocesan narcissism of the kind proposed.
Frank Campbell, Southampton
You published new evidence of the decline of Catholicism in Latin America (22 November); the principal reasons given were “a desire for a personal relationship with God” and “the style of worship”. Week after week we are informed of an immense reduction in vocations to the priesthood and attendance at Mass.
Might one speak frankly, yet with genuine devotion to the Church? The Mass is devoid of youth because its liturgy is boring and sexist. The priesthood is not an aspiration because it too is sexist and not integrated into modern life. Whatever is the way Christianity is taught in Catholic schools, oversubscribed as they seem to be, it is doubtful if even 5 per cent of pupils, students and families using them “practise”. The Catholic Church is failing to respond to the very reasonable expectations and the very good and healthy attitudes to life of the modern man and woman. It presents itself as reaction.
Such criticisms as “a desire for a personal relationship with God” and “the style of worship” should be warmly welcomed as pointers, not seen as criticisms. They are valid. The whole ethos of the modern Western world, based on its level of universal education and its economic progress and success, one major reason for which is in fact Christianity, is one huge surge towards independence and equality.
The Church of Christ should be in the vanguard of that movement, not seen as hostile to it. Our liturgy should strive to give opportunity to a personal relationship with God but if looked at objectively it is priest-bound and priest-centred; and the restriction of the priesthood to celibate males is rank sexism, illegal and abhorrent in modern society.
Half the Catholic population is totally excluded from decision-making, which should be inexcusable, and considered shameful by us, in this day and age. It offends the modern female, and so it should. Why should they bother with such an institution?
Christ died for them too. Furthermore, the structure and exercise of authority within the Church isn't just male power as objectionable as in certain other religions and societies but is excessively centralised and hostile to local and national aspirations, competencies and initiatives. Christ did not die for such a situation as this.
Michael Knowles, Cheshire
Loading ...
