Call me old, cynical and fed up. Do you want to know why so few people are attending Mass and could care less about synodality, pastoral councils, parish committees and lay men and women involved in the Church’s structures? Because they don’t want their faith to be about one more adventure into human sociology but they want their faith to enable a personal relationship with God who is personal.
This is just more of the same crap we’ve have for the past 50 years that has done nothing to improve the Church in terms of retaining Catholics, evangelizing a non-believing world and making truly committed disciple of the Lord in the world, not just in churchy things.
In addition to that, it is all so worldly. Apart from my cynical critique, what strikes you about the interview?
You can read the full interview at the link below this “sound byte”:
What is the difference between collegiality and synodality?
In a technical sense, collegiality is for the bishops. The First Vatican Council emphasized the primacy of the pope, with the view that the bishops received their authority from the pope and have to approve what the pontiff decided. The church was conceived very hierarchical. The Second Vatican Council debated a lot this question of collegiality and concluded that the pope was not separate from the college of apostles and that power could be exercised together by the pope and the bishops.
Synodality, in today's sense as emphasized by Pope Francis, who is calling for a synodal church, means that the whole people of God, who, by their baptism, are called to be actors, are to participate in discernment.
Yes, the challenge is now to see pastors not separated from their people. Vatican II has made things move, has rediscovered the vision of Christians from the first centuries, when the governance of the church was synodal and collegial.
Synodality is a fruit of the Second Vatican Council, a kind of rediscovery of a way of seeing the church first as people of God, people journeying together as pilgrims. What is complicated in the present situation is that we are in a transition phase, with two ecclesiologies that are colliding.
On one hand, we inherit from more than 1,500 years a hierarchical, clerical church where the clerics are separated from the laity. On the other hand, we can imagine a synodal church as described by the Second Vatican Council but which has not yet been received and implemented.
The situation of the church in the world is very varied, very contrasted. It is necessary to look beyond one's own parish. Several currents and sensitivities coexist within the Catholic Church. A majority of laypeople, including women, aspire to see a synodal church, but there is also some resistance from others.
Synodality means that the whole people of God, who, by their baptism, are called to be actors, are to participate in discernment.
38 comments:
Uh, and where does a life spent in loving union with God fit into her sociological structures sole focus?
She is just another bureaucrat talking about bureaurocracies and reshaping bureaurocracies to fit her bureaurocratic bosses ideas of a better bureaurocracy so that she can keep her powerful and cushy bureaucratic job.
She also lies on command...."a majority...aspires to see a synodal church." The majority of whom and where? Based on what research, interviews and questions?
How are you supposed to participate in “discernment” when you are functionally illiterate in knowledge of the Faith? Nice buzzword
"The First Vatican Council emphasized the primacy of the pope, with the view that the bishops received their authority from the pope and have to approve what the pontiff decided."
Yet, bishops do not derive their authority from the pope. It comes from their ordination as bishops in which they are made sharers in the fullness of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
You do not derive your priestly authority from your bishop. He cannot simply decide, for whatever reason, that you can't be a priest any more. That's not within his authority.
"Do you want to know why so few people are attending Mass and could care less about synodality, pastoral councils, parish committees and lay men and women involved in the Church’s structures?"
The structure of the Church, and discussions about that structure, are not in any way related to people not coming to church. Nor should they be. I'm sure many in your parish "could NOT care less" about the details of your parish's contract with the bank for your mortgage or with the work the details of the work the HVAC people do to keep your buildings comfortable, but that doesn't mean that these things aren't important. Nor does it mean they should not be discussed by the people who are involved.
As I've been reading about this synod in Germany that threatens to catalyze a worldwide schism, I pondered how this sort of thing unfolds, and who gets involved in such a thing. And it seems pretty clear to me what happens: the dominant folks will certainly be those who are the professionals, the highly organized and those with agendas. In other words, it's a lot like politics. Only everyone is expected to pretend it's not, so the agendas are masked.
You know who isn't at all interested in getting involved in these synods? The 99% of ordinary Catholics who have other things keeping them busy, like their jobs, their families, their businesses. They won't show up or if they do, they won't stay long enough; the agenda-folks will make sure they stay longer.
Fr Martin,
Spot on! Exactly.
"What is new is that my current position includes the right to vote"
"Synodality means that the whole people of God, who, by their baptism, are called to be actors, are to participate in discernment."
Is the "the whole people of God" the same as God, or is it its own god? to me the whole paper seems to be more about the congregation.Actually,its more about members of religious orders. Really its about members of women's religious orders. Jesus Christ isn't even mentioned, neither is The Father or the Holy Spirit.
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” I don't see synod in that statement. The keys weren't given to twelve guys It sounds to me that the whole hierarchical thing might be biblical and has been the order of the Church since Jesus Christ made that statement.
Anon 509, most folk do not care about admin of parish so long as money spent wisely and lacks theft, kickbacks and corruption, and this really has nothing to do with more synodality apart from the regime pushing for more synodality are precisely the folk who have set new records for theft, kickbacks and corruption, not to mention setting new moral lows.
Otherwise, synodality is not about admin, but about doctrine, which is the end game hidden by all the obfuscation and double-speak.
Father Fox,
You should be the Pope!
Your fake name HERE,
In the 1990s as a teenager, my “kickback”, as merely the godson of a parish employee and helping out a little, was a carton of cigarettes and $50, from funds made from various activities and gambling nights etc in a large, wealthy parish in .........archdiocese.
This reminds me of my 8th grade religion course at a Catholic school taught by a well-meaning nun who had abandoned the habit and embraced the "new paradigm". We were supposed to memorize the structure of parish councils and what their purpose was. I was far more interested in what the Church had to say about our lives and why I should still even believe in God. In short, I was bored out of my mind. To this day, the mere mention of that nun's name--and I still maintain she was a nice lady, just not a good religion teacher--the mere mention of her name makes me cringe.
Fr. McDonald, our choice or the word "crap" was apt in this case. It's going on 50 years and these schmucks still don't get it.
Speaking of clericalism, did anyone notice Pope Francis kissing the hands of the newly ordained priests on Sunday? I was surprisingly moved by this. Is this an Argentinian practice that he's kept up, or is it something else?
Fr Fox makes a good point. A small, highly organized group with clear shared goals will will the day over unfocused populations. This is the fruit of the last fifty years with Catholic catechesis becoming so watered down in a bid for ecumenism. Fr Fox addresses this clearly in his blog, Bonfire of the Vanities.
Thanks for the nice comments...
Let me add a few thoughts for anyone who cares, about parish administration. Of course, our genial host, and other pastors, will have their own observations and experiences.
- Most of the faithful don't know much about the business side of a parish, and most don't ask. As a pastor, I want them to know A LOT more, for various reasons. One is that I want them to know what keeps me busy (so they don't imagine that I'm not); another is I want them to understand why the parish needs whatever number of dollars we spend each year and ask for the next year.
- A large portion of our annual budget is personnel costs and sometimes that's hard for people to see; they can see maintenance and repairs, but they don't always see what value they get for this or that employee.
- FYI, a lot of what several of my employees do -- and me included -- is "compliance" with various mandates of the government and the diocese. And however tedious it is, compliance with good business procedures and safe-environment protocols is worth it. Again, I very much want people to know about all this, so they can have greater confidence.
- Universal Church law mandates finance councils at the parish level but pastoral councils at the diocesan level; our diocese mandates the latter at the parish level, and I think they have become virtually universal. My diocese says I must have a pastoral council and it specifies how I am to interact with it: I "preside" at the meetings; I must "consult" on various matters, particularly with expenses over, I think, $5,000; I must seek positive endorsement for expenditures over $25,000, as a predicate for gaining the needed approval of the archbishop. "Consultation" does not mean I must gain endorsement; but the pastoral council can appeal a decision to the archbishop, and there's a procedure for how that goes with which I have no actual experience -- i.e., that's never happened to me. There are other specifications about the roles of the finance and pastoral councils.
Continued from prior comment...
- The term is Pastoral, not Parish Council. What's the difference? The latter could give people the idea that Parish Council is kind of like a Village Council, especially where people join the council by election. But the task is not to be a mini-legislature, but to counsel the pastor. In my parish, we further changed the name to "Pastoral Advisory Council," although that change hasn't really sunk in yet; but it expresses the reality. That said, a wise pastor really will seek that advice, and pay attention to it; but that same wise pastor will not seek advise on matters that aren't up for debate: "What do y'all think about women priests?"
- My diocese doesn't mandate how people are chosen for the pastoral (advisory) council; everywhere I've been, it has been by election, with some being members "ex officio." I tend to think that elections aren't a good way to do it, both because they can reinforce the "village council" mindset and also, people may not like being nominated only to lose and they may not be willing to be nominated again. More seriously, I think a committee is more likely to work together if they are chosen by a leader to serve, as opposed to all arriving there from different places.
- The task of making these consultative bodies really effective is real work for the pastor; the right way to do it (in my opinion) is, first, to choose the right people very carefully; second, to give them really solid information and guidance on what their role is; third, to give them all the information they need about the parish matters within their purview, and fourth, to keep them focused on their particular task. If the pastor doesn't give good direction, the groups may get going in a different direction, and after awhile, that becomes normal, and then, "we've always done it this way." But let me tell you, what I'm describing is real work and it's easy for the pastor to neglect it (and I'm not claiming I am especially good at this part).
Mr Kumpel, you fairly nailed the problem in catechesis to this very day.
It has been zero spiritual instruction and instead, all organizational and sometimes even doctrinal.
It is all excruciatingly detailed instruction on how a car is built, its parts, design, performance parameters, sourcing, labor relations, factory management organization, overhead....
and nobody is taught to how to drive the entire time.
Anon1057...in the 1950s I could see that easily. Maybe even the 1960s. With what is known today or in the 1990s, a carton of smokes to a teen shows a lot more problems than finances, but this is not suprising in wealthier parishes.
As interesting as the parish finance discussions are, they have little or nothing to do with the "synodality" push, which is all about changing doctrines to allow cherry picking of which Christian tenets to follow.
On the other hand, it does, as it illustrates an entire collapse into secular and capitalist mindset of a parish as a business to manage, with customers to serve and repeat business kept, and new markets opened.
As contrasted to a true community of believers in true communion with one another as they seek to follow Jesus in a life of simplicity, prayer, service, and penance.
Where parish positions should not be paid positions at all, but where folk are given the basic necessities of a simple life including three hots and a cot and them otherwise living a life seeking God, where parishoners skilled in trades perform the various works the parish requires, from HVAC to structure maintenance, them also living in the same community, them also employing their assorted skills and knowledge to the betterment of the community, to include legal, medical, and teaching skills.
In short, a TRUE Christian community, taking care of each other, with any surplus applied to outsiders in Christian benevolence.
But try to pry people away from their worldly focus and possessions and income, to lead a simple life.
Blah, blah, blah. Will this drumbeat ever end?
Tom Makin,
Well it is much easier for a nun to pontificate about synodality instead of teaching, nursing, running an orphanage
TJM at 5:11 - because heaven knows women, especially religious sisters, can't be in leadership positions. Yeah, we got your number.
(Your Fake Name Here):
I don't see why you in particular get to decide what is the right and virtuous way to run a parish. You have your idea and you are welcome to seek to implement it. Good luck!
But if you are suggesting your model is more authentic in some way, then the burden of proof rests with you to demonstrate that.
Sister Backoff Kavanaugh,
Unlike you, Sisters actually provided a real service to the Faithful that made a difference in their lives other than meaningless buzzwords
Father Fox, obviously what is needed is less focus on worldly affairs, lucre and all its pomps, and more focus on seeking God/following Christ every moment of every day. A Christian LIFE rather than "our Sunday visitor".
The OSV model is an utter failure not only in propogating the Faith, but also in keeping what faithful we have, because of the plain as the nose on your face fact that most are NOT living lives focused on love of God, and 99.9% of all their effort is focused on the material world, nor are they led by "pastors" who do that, and people can see that.
Parishes need to be true communities fostering love of God above all other things, and primarily a place to seek and find him, the very first commandment, ratified by Jesus, and yet such is always treated as only hyperbole even though spoken by both Father and Son.
If one looks at the amount of money donated by the faithful squandered on what amounts to corporate initiatives, spent on outside ventures, maintenance of corporate headquarters, beaurocracies, committees, paid staffs, works of "mercy" for outsiders while the majority of parishoners in the USA lack in all things to include health care and decent housing, it is also clear the focus entirely is lost on community and care of same.
Telling ME "good luck with that, go for it" is facetious and fatuitous as we know who has the means to build a community, and it is not some poor individual. People have deep spiritual needs and the current system is NOT meeting them, and your reply is that of a functionary saying "Not invented here. NEXT please."
Fake Name would be, I suggest, very surprised were he/she to examine the annual budgets of the vast majority of Catholic parishes and schools. I have served in multiple parishes and in NONE has money ever been spent of "corporate initiatives, outside ventures, maintenance of corporate headquarters, etc."
Yesm we pay our staffs as no one is stepping up to mop the floors, trim the hedges, manage the accounts, coordinate the religious ed programs, etc. for free. "The laborer is worthy of his reward." (1 Tim 5:8) You don't want volunteers in most office positions.
Many of the folks who work for parishes, especially in our schools, could make significantly higher wages in public schools, but they choose teaching in Catholic schools because they value what we do.
Saying that "...the majority of parishoners in the USA lack in all things to include health care and decent housing,..." simply is not true. There are always some few, but the vast majority have these things.
AND some of the money that people contribute through the offertory is used to respond to those who are in need, inside and outside our parishes. My own parish stepped up mightily when, in the early sates of the pandemic, I established a fund to assist any family with kids in our school who lost income due to the pandemic. That generosity has kept the children on four families in our school.
Focus on the material world is required for anyone who lives in the material world. The laity are not called to live lives of mendicant style poverty. Maintaining a balance - and that will be different for different people in different circumstances - is our on-going struggle until we reach the other side of the tombstone.
St. Anne’s lawn care, and we have a huge property with rectory 8 miles away and needing lawn care, is completely volunteer!
(Fake Name Here)
My point in saying "good luck with that" was not to be dismissive, but to invite you to the actual experience of trying to make your ideas work, rather than fault others who haven't done so.
One of the fascinating things about our Catholic Church, being around so long, as that at some point, it seems like almost everything has happened before. Back about 700 or so years ago, there was a big dispute in the Franciscan Order over issues related to what we're talking about. I won't go into detail, because I don't claim to have all the facts lined up right in front of me -- and I'll let you and others decide for yourself how applicable that episode is, here -- but the gist of it is this: there were Franciscans who were trying oh-so-hard to carry through the principles of poverty to the nth degree, not only for individual members, but for the entire order. On the other side were those who said, in effect, that won't work; someone has to own something at some point, even if individual members do not. The pope, as I recall, intervened more or less on the side of the latter group, and there was fair amount of gnashing of teeth over this compromise of Francis' values -- if indeed it was.
Again, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate what's so terrible about priests, and lay staff, being paid for their work, and if paid, paid something like a normal, livable wage. To me it seems highly hypocritical for bishops and others speaking for the Church to call for the government to mandate higher wages and more benefits, and to advocate for unionization to spread, even while church bodies themselves too often pay substandard wages. Practice what you preach, seems apt here.
I could write a book about how many nice-sounding ideas about how a parish ought to be run don't really work, and worse, aren't really all that "nice" as they shake out.
And I absolutely push back against the notion that keeping a budget, using good business practices, paying fair prices for goods and fair wages for people's skills and labor, is somehow inconsistent with the Gospel and with a spiritual way of seeing things. Where does this goofy idea come from? Although I absolutely do not think you are a heretic, it does vaguely savor of dualism, which always is a feature of heresy -- to set the physical against the spiritual. God became Man, he didn't come down and scorn his physical creation, nor did he say, once here, let's get the heck out of here and shake off all this filth. That's Gnosticism.
And your office staff, and building maintenance staff...?
Building maintenance staff??????Such luxury for rich parishes. One custodial person for entire campus and volunteers for maintenance unless they have to call in someone to handle something too big for them--remodeled old building next to chapel for our office complex. all volunteers.
Father McD:
I have no issue with volunteer contributions, that is a wonderful gift to any organization, including to Catholic parishes. It's awesome when you can get it and make it work, but my point would be -- and I think you would agree with this -- is that the reality is often far more complicated than people might imagine.
For one is the issue of insurance and liability and what happens if someone gets injured.
For another is accountability for the job being done well and on a timely basis. Very often, in my experience, good folks are ready to volunteer to do a job, but they may not be able to do it in a timely way, because they need to do it after hours, or when their busy season is over, etc. All this is entirely understandable, but you can't do that with, for example, snow removal or grass-cutting and other matters.
Further, I can tell sad stories of work that was cheerfully offered, but sadly wasn't really well done and actually did damage. A pastor is not necessarily in the best position to know if the person showing up to do "free" electrical work or woodworking repair actually knows how to do it well. I've been the pastor who came along later and had to undo the damage. Sometimes the damage cannot be undone.
Yet another example: I had a recurring leak in the church (a prior parish) and when I found out it had been going on a long, long time, my reaction was to say, can't we fix this for good? It was causing plaster damage over and over. So, I reached out to a company that was run by a parishioner and asked for a proposal, and because it was a big project, I reached out to a second company for its proposal. The first company came back with a much smaller price tag, which raised the question, what were the details of their proposals? Turns out the first was more a patch-it solution, which is precisely what we'd been doing and not what I thought we needed. That company was given another chance to offer a better solution but did not. So I went with the second company. We paid more money, but last I checked, the solution actually solved the problem.
But the company that lost the bid was REALLY mad; they'd been helping the parish all those years, and had given a lot (all true), and felt they'd been mistreated. It took awhile before that hurt went away and I don't know that the folks there ever really forgave me.
But really, what had I done wrong? Of course you can't know that my account is accurate, but here's what I think is the deeper story. That company -- good people -- were accustomed to dealing with prior pastors a certain way; those pastors accepted a cheap, short-term fix, and they had a familiar, friendly relationship (nothing wrong with any of this). But I came along and said, this is causing damage, it's not right to let it go on. We'll spend more in the long run with these short-term fixes. And I think the company in question felt unappreciated for what had gone before. Not true: but they didn't offer me the fix I asked for, so what was I supposed to do? This wasn't only about friendship, but about the hard facts of what the parish needed. And, by the way, about being fair to the other business, that made a good offer, and didn't do anything wrong (and ended up giving us a great result, as promised). Why should that company have been treated badly in all this?
I could go on and on. It all tends to substantiate two points my father often made: "You get what you pay for" and "free isn't free."
Again: we need the generosity of volunteers, but the reality is always more complicated.
This is the only parish that I have been a pastor of that does not have paid people for all the areas that would be good to do so. I don't even have a housekeeper, only a cleaning later that comes once a month. I do my own grocery shopping, laundry, cooking in addition to a more than full time job as a priest;it is 24/7/365.
And yes, having volunteers do these thins while wonderful, causes me anxiety in the sense of overworking them, or not showing enough appreciation or if they stop, then what.
We have a $5 million debt with a $32,000 a month note. That is where our money goes and there is no light at the end of the tunnel in my time here.
Father, this Friday's (the 30th) MegaMillions drawing is for $319 Million......
'Vatican II has made things move, has rediscovered the vision of Christians from the first centuries, when the government of the Church was synodal and collegial.'
In fact the early Church was more clerical than she cares to admit. The authority of the clergy was the only guarantee of unity at a time when heresies were widespread. In the first century Clement of Rome compared the clergy to the legates, tribunes and centurions of the Roman Army, and anyone rejecting their authority was guilty of grave sin.
Writing in AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch stressed that the authority of the bishop was the sole criterion of a legitimate Christian Church. This might be described as synodality and collegiality, but it certainly does not imply that the whole 'People of God' participated in 'discernment', whatever that means.
John, it seems that the good sister may not be a good theologian or church historian and wants to make it up as she goes. My new post on Pope Francis decrying those who want to make synods to comply with the latest fads in society or the Church makes me wonder if he wasn't indirectly responding to her interview which garnered worldwide coverage.
And certainly, in Rome and in the Curia there must be cardinals, bishops and really well-qualified theologians and historians who must be cringing at her interview because it is so vapid.
John and Fr Allan,
The whole “People of God” participating in discernment in the Catholic Church approach is similar to (and is influenced by) what is taking place in modern mainstream secular society, culture and education at all levels, where such modern Woke dogmas are embraced and promoted :
Dominant forms of knowledge have been constructed largely from the experiences of the most powerful, ie: those white, heterosexual, Christian, western males who historically have had the most access to systems of education and communication.
The often unwritten, often untold and subordinated truths of people of colour, LGBT persons AND WOMEN can be a great source of knowledge........ and those who are most oppressed actually have access to a deeper and more authentic knowledge about life and society.
The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically western and masculine way of thinking - this idea must be challenged.......in fact, it can be accurately claimed that multiple knowledges exist and they are related to identity; for example, being a black, trans woman.
The above modern “dogmas” are what is being taught to my daughter and her friends (and a million plus others) in an average, liberal/progressive college.
Anonymous 4:06 PM,
Sounds like you and your daughter are being fleeced of your hard earned money for what passes as a college education these days. Some smart class action attorney at some point will sue one of these colleges for its fraudulent “woke” degrees on a consumer fraud theory.
I agree with Father Fox concerning liability. Like what if a volunteer does yard work and gets poison ivy or bitten by one of the countless poisonous snakes that thrive in south Georgia's warm climate?!? Or an alligator? Gotta be careful especially at night when the critters like to come out after the sun has set and the heat has slowly receded!
Does Father M. have a preference for groceries? Publix? Kroger? Fresh Market? Whole Foods? Trader Joes?
"Wow" on your parish's 5-million debt! I hope the bishop and previous pastor mentioned that before you transferred out of Macon. But that aside, if you asked 100 people whether they would rather live in Macon or on the Georgia coast, I suspect at least 95 would choose the latter!
“Anonymous” at 2.53pm, and elsewhere:
There is irony; and there is pathetic, unsubtle sarcasm.
Could you, with an IQ and imagination probably a little higher than a boiled potato, explain the difference?
Larry Fleishman.
I am of course NOT referring here to Fr Fox or Fr MacDonald but there is another type of priest, many of whom, I’ve known since I was boy MANY years ago, who is best described not as a troll or Democrat voter etc but as an individual who fears much more the consequences of rejecting a lot of the madness of mainstream secular culture than he fears the consequences of a lack of fidelity to at least some core aspects of the Catholic Faith.
And this applies not just to Catholic priests who fear rejection by members of the mainstream, often pagan, secular culture.....but ordinary lay Catholics too; for example, it takes real courage in many workplaces in the modern West to even quietly but firmly make clear one does not embrace the core parts of the LGBTQI+ movement/agenda and one believes abortion is immoral.
I can honestly recall being only about 16 (in the mid 1970s) and being fully aware back then that it was simply impossible to be both open about one’s commitment to even the basics of “mere Christianity” and being fully accepted and fully a part of mainstream secular society.....in that crazy decade.
Post a Comment