Developing A Dynamic Diocese

Faced with the problem of a falling number of active priests a Diocese must ask questions about its future and development; a development from which no one can exclude themselves. Our Diocese too is looking for ways of developing and moving forward in the light of a falling number of priests, for which it is to be commended. As our Ordinary has noted however, “The process cannot be pain free, but it can be fruitful”. Here then, are some quotes from the Diocesan website (see here) on this very issue.

This new project will look at ways in which to

encourage Catholic communities to flourish

with or without a resident priest.

In time, hard decisions will have to be made about

 buildings and communities/parishes which are no longer sustainable.

Each congregation will be asked to evaluate themselves

by answering the big question:

what makes for a flourishing Catholic community?

The day is approaching when we will not be able to

supply Sunday mass in every parish,

but we must not get depressed because

we have many committed priests and people.

NB. The small case 'm' for Mass is from the Diocesan website; it is not my deprecation!

However, I suspect the real pain is being avoided world-wide; a pain which will inevitably flow from facing the reality that laity cannot authentically lead Catholic communities. The fact is that we have to form Catholic Communities in light of Catholic Faith or they are not Catholic communities at all, and a Catholic community must always be head and members since at its very essence is the sacramental function of Christ the Head and Shepherd, for which the ordained priest is essential (cf. Redemptionis sacramentum 146). While not wishing to downplay the important part laity play in the day to day life of parishes (I for one would not like to lose the secretary, bookkeeper, financial advisors, Pastoral Care Council, housebound visitors, catechists, musicians etc) the truth is that laity are called by Christ to be the leaven in society (Apostolicam actuositatem 2,7), not to lead Catholic communities.

Since it is the falling number of priests that brings about the need to reorganise, a Diocese wishing to develop and become dynamic must first recover the priesthood in its sacred reality as shepherding in the person of Christ; as the bridge between heaven and earth; as spouse of the Church of Christ; as conformed to Christ in self-sacrifice for the good of others and sacramentally configured to Christ for teaching, sanctifying and governing in union with the episcopate (Catechism #1563/1592). At present the priest is seen as little more than a middle-manager in a collar who, if absent, can be replaced by laity with a theology degree as long as there is a supply of the Host in the tabernacle. Truly, we will not attract young men to priesthood if it is just lay ministry in a collar. Thus the vital essence of priesthood needs to be recovered and promoted before we start managing decline, albeit spun to sound like the promotion of dynamic communities.

Along with the recovery of the priesthood in its full reality, the authentic lay vocation as the leaven in the world needs to be recovered. The laity are, after all, the front line troops who fight for Christ and for souls. Vatican II spoke enthusiastically of Lay Mission, but somehow this has mutated (or been distorted) during the last fifty years into ‘lay ministry’ -even though one becomes a minister only through sacred ordination (Christifideles laici 23). The laity need to be valued and empowered in their proper vocation as given by Christ, not disempowered in it so as to become pseudo-clerics.  I am all for having an active laity but not for the distortion, since it is this distortion that diminished the response to the priestly calling: young men do not apply for priesthood when they can be lay-leaders.

The distortion has lost us some impressive and vital lay activity: serving Mass is now seen as something for young boys (and sometimes girls), while the Legion of Mary and SVP (which allowed many a devout Catholic to live out the spiritual and corporal works of mercy in superb local witness to the Church’s care of the poor, the housebound and the marginalised) have virtually disappeared from our parishes.

If a Diocese is looking to develop rather than manage decline then, I believe two things are necessary. First, a return to solid doctrinal formation for priests and laity (especially our children who had the catechism removed from them and replaced with colouring books and dialogue); a formation which promotes and empowers each vocation showing the vital necessity and complimentarity of both. Second, a return to a liturgy that focuses on God rather than one which aims at cheery, emotive affirmation of the folk. Such recoveries will be painful, especially because it will require admitting mistakes made over the last fifty years, but painful transitions can be fruitful, as our Bishop said. After all, the fruits of the fifty years have been the closure of parishes, convents, monasteries, seminaries and schools, all spurred by a precipitous fall in Mass attendance. We must avoid being diabolically deceived into seeing such losses and closures as positive fruits or as windows of opportunity. It is decay, pure and simple.