There are many aspects to reform in the church. Different people and different reform groups, have their own take on what, or who, needs reform the most urgently. I must admit the recent article by Antonio Spadaro on Pope Francis has prompted me to think more about it.[1] I would like to share some of those thoughts with you.
On the personal level, reform in the church touches both the mind and the heart. On the institutional level it concerns a very wide range of aspects like doctrinal, moral, spiritual, liturgical, structural and attitudinal.
Much of the effort of reform groups worldwide in recent times has been directed at the pope, bishops, and “the Vatican” since they are the decision-makers. That is the politics of the issue. And we can now, after the sexual abuse scandals, include priests in that list.
Let us stand back for a moment, and take a look at the demographics underlying the whole question of church and reform. I have to speak to my own experience, conscious that others from different age groups, different cultures and different countries will have their own specific take on it. The percentage of those involved in reform groups in Australia (and NZ?) is, at a guess, about 5% or less. In the church the hierarchy is less than 1%. That leaves about 90% of the church to think about. An unspecified percentage of these are older pre-Vatican thinking and acting people who have no interest in changing themselves and no interest in the topic of changes in the church. And in their case, change might be impossible, so they will probably go to their graves with their current beliefs and practices.
The rest, perhaps 40-45% might change how they think and what they do, if they were given good reasons to do so. There are many influences that have brought this about. One obvious one is that they have been neglected since Vatican II, because of the lacuna of adult “growth in faith” programs, and perhaps too, neglected in our current focus of reform.
Antonio Spadaro’s illuminating essay on the pontificate of Pope Francis is helpful in many ways. It is a great help in understanding Francis’ approach to change or conversion. Francis sees conversion applying to everyone in the church. He is reluctant to move forward in synodality until there has been time for discernment. This explains why when he became pope he did not call for the resignation of those who opposed him but wanted to give all a time to discern.
The analogy that Francis used referring to his method, which caught my eye, was that of litmus paper in a liquid. When the liquid is acid/alkaline throughout, the colour of the litmus paper will change either red or blue depending on its acidity or alkalinity. To artificially change the litmus paper is pointless. One has to wait for the whole liquid to change. To change to married pastors, to ordain women, to welcome LGBTIQ persons into the church, will of itself will not bring reform to the church. Change has to permeate the whole church.
So it is with the Church. Francis wants the church to change. He rejects cutting off heads and making dictatorial changes because this will be superficial. Simply ordaining married men and women or making other structural changes will not, of itself, bring conversion. So with synodality we have to be patient. But as the church is a human organization it will always fall short of the ideal. History shows that sometimes those who cannot change or who disagree with authority, will form their own church. Two classic historical examples are: The Old Catholic Church, formed after Vatican I and the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) founded by Marcel Lebebvre in 1970, after Vatican II. Yet the ideal that we wait until all are aboard remains attractive, even if humanly unattainable.
My point is that any reform group should turn some significant attention to the 40-45% of parishioners who might change if things were explained to them. Perhaps reform groups have focused too narrowly on the hierarchy and neglected the laity. I have always felt that changing the hierarchy is going to be a huge challenge, but an even greater challenge might well be changing the passivity of the laity. The image of trying to quickly turn an aircraft carrier around comes to mind. The laity, after all have been told for centuries that their job is to “pray, pay and obey”. Or, as someone else has expressed it: the laity have been “parked” for centuries.
My gut feeling is that we have neglected them. By our words and actions we could try to re-orient the parish to what is essential. This would be conversion from the ground up. There is little to stop us doing this now, not waiting for the Plenary Council or other events.
Francis has given us all the information on that score: Return to the gospels and modify structures that block a return to the gospels (Evangelii Gaudium). Take time to prepare liturgies, introduce bible studies, form book clubs on spiritual reading, form meditation groups, form groups that visit the sick, and imprisoned, invite people to discussion groups on burning issues and current church issues, take action regarding refugees and other social justice issues. Let qualified lay people look after the financial aspect of a parish. Reject clericalism in what we say and do, and call no one “Father”. These are all things that could be done locally with or without the pastor. This will turn the litmus paper.
The problem is that today we tend to sit back and wait for others (bishops) to take actions because that is the clerical way we have been brought up. While certainly not giving up on approaching our bishops we must become proactive in things we can do at parish or diocesan levels.
Having said that, we are impatient beings. We live in a world where change is happening more quickly than in other eras. We are reluctant to wait endlessly for bishops to act. There is an episcopal inertia that infuriates all. We all know examples of this.
We can appreciate that a synod is not a political parliament and that discernment is necessary. For each person to make a speech promoting his/her point of view can mean that neither side is listening to the other. I think this is what Francis meant when he said there was no discernment at the synod on the Amazon regarding the ordination of married men.
In short, we must keep pressure on the hierarchy but simultaneously attend to our own conversion and that of the laity around us. Reform is more than politics, it is inclusive conversion.
[1] Antonio Spadaro,S.J., “. Francis’ Government: What is the driving force of his pontificate?”, La Civilta Cattolica, laciviltacattolica.com September 2020. accessed 16.9.2020
Gideon Goosen is a Sydney-based theologian and author. His latest book is Clericalism: Stories from the Pew, (Melbourne: Coventry Press, 2020)
Comments
4 responses to “The Catholic Church: who needs reform?”
G’day, Gideon. Timely offering, The reading at yesterday’s Sunday banquet was challenging to homilists and readers, I hope.
The banquet with only 10% attending; the others dismissing the invitation.
Not to worry? Our numbers are still over a billion world-wide, thanks to a minimum requirement of membership celebrated at baptisms. The missing 90% are at the cross-roads and can be invited in; does this make for cafeteria Catholics?
And that individual who was there, but was silent – was he sitting on a messianic secret? At the least he was closer to the 2 or 3 gatherings we must promote more and more in our atomised, coronavirused world.
Gideon, Enjoyed your piece. I look forward to reading your book.My feeling is that the institution of the Catholic Church is beyond reform. I long for the Spirit of the Christ to rise from the ashes of the old crumbling structures to build a new 21 st century vibrant community.
That sounds like a really good plan to get change from the ground up rather from the top down. But good luck with that. Here’s just two examples:
The sacking of Father Peter Kennedy in 2009, a priest for more than 40 years, came after the Catholic Church questioned the non-standard manner in which St Mary’s conducted mass, including practices like allowing women to preach and blessing homosexual couples. The unprecedented dismissal came after Peter was accused of fostering unorthodox practices, changing words in liturgies, supporting women preachers, allowing a gay and lesbian choir to rehearse on the church grounds and using lay people in services.
Bishop William Morris from Toowoomba was removed from his diocese by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011 over what was said to be doctrinal and disciplinary matters. He fell out with the Vatican and Pope after canvassing more progressive views including raising the prospect of the Church considering the ordination of married men and women to help counter a shortfall in priests. The bishop was the first person to apologise over the sexual abuse of 13 schoolgirls at the hands of former teacher Gerard Vincent Byrnes, meeting with the victims and opening the way for them to be paid compensation.
Not for one moment do I believe that the Church will have the courage to tackle the institutional change that is needed. There are too many sacred cows, too much history, too many hidden agendas, too many people of power unwilling to relinquish it for the greater good.
Gideon,
While I can agree in part with your caution for change, evidence shows that over the long history of the Church, any attempts at reform have generally been opposed by those holding power and authority. Jesus, Himself faced such problems in attempting to reform Judaism , leading to his trial and execution. The Early Church, a sect of Judaism, split from that Faith when differences between “Followers of the Way” and the Jewish Hierarchy became untenable and the differences insurmountable .
James your comments and the examples of recent actions by the church hierarchy against those who would rock the boat of orthodoxy, graphically illustrate this resistance to change at all costs mindset. Retired Bishop Pat Power, a family friend for decades, retired from his role as Auxiliary Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn because of his frustration with the lack of reform. In my opinion he was a brave and honest cleric who was, unlike most Bishops ,was prepared to speak his mind, no matter how unpalatable his views were to those in power.
In my view the financial cost to the Church of declining congregations,the clergy loss and rejection of traditional doctrinal credibility may hasten change and much needed reforms much faster than we think.