2014-10-08      Peter J Wilkinson     Peter's previous articles

Co-responsibility: vision or pipedream?

-  published in The Swag, Vol. 22, No. 3, Spring 2014, pp. 31-33.

               (Comments welcome here)

“Pastoral ministry in a missionary key seeks to abandon the complacent attitude that says: ‘We have always done it this way.’ [B]e bold and creative in rethinking the goals, structures, style, and methods of evangelization in [your] communities. A proposal of goals, without an adequate communal search for the means of achieving them, will inevitably prove illusory. The important thing is to not walk alone, but to rely on each other as brothers and sisters.”  Evangelii Gaudium, n.33

Vatican II had a bold vision for ‘co-responsibility’ in the Church - clergy, religious and laity ‘walking together’ in planning, decision-making, and ministry. Synods were ‘to flourish with new vigour’ and new official means of participation and pastoral dialogue to be established. Canon Law was to be revised and the laity told that not only did they “have the right and at times the duty in accord with their knowledge, competence or ability, to make known to the bishops their opinions on matters which pertain to the good of the church, and to make their opinions known to other Christian faithful as well” (C. 212.3), but that they ‘can cooperate in the exercise of the same power of governance or jurisdiction enjoyed by those in sacred orders’ (C. 129.2).

 But what happened to this vision?

 In 2009, Benedict XVI admitted it was unfulfilled: “Too many of the baptized do not feel part of the ecclesial community and live on its margins, only coming to parishes in certain circumstances to receive religious services. Pastoral structures must be improved in such a way that the co-responsibility of all the members of the People of God in their entirety is promoted. This demands a change in mindset, particularly concerning lay people. They must no longer be viewed as ‘collaborators’ of the clergy, but truly recognized as ‘co-responsible’ for the Church’s being and action.”1

 Now, Francis admits that ‘the call to review and renew our parishes has not yet sufficed to bring them nearer to people, [and] them make them environments of living communion and participation’ (EG, 28).

 Pastoral Planning

If rethinking and proposing goals are critical elements for evangelization, planning is the method and co-responsibility the key, with the whole undertaking localized and ‘communal’. If local churches are to shape the specifics of the Gospel’s universal plan, bishops must ‘plan the stages of the journey ahead with the help of all sectors of God’s people’.² 

Pastoral planning is ‘the response of faith to the call of God in Christ to grow the Kingdom through the witness and outreach of the Church in each generation for the sake of the world’.³ It begins with a review of the basic pastoral realities of the diocese using reliable data, looking at diocesan structures, ministries and resources, and examining the ‘signs of the times’ such as migration trends, cultural diversity, Catholic identity, shortage of priests, vocations, Mass attendance, parish/school interaction, and the fallout from clerical sexual abuse and its cover-up.

Planning also identifies pastoral priorities, articulates a diocesan vision and sets clear goals.  Without an overarching diocesan plan, individual parishes, ministries and agencies can fly off at tangents and weaken the unity and purpose of mission. But for the vision, goals and priorities to be owned by all, they need to be discerned by all – bishop, clergy, religious and laity ‘in common’. To effectively tap into the sensus fidei fidelium, an inclusive, open and sensitive consultation process is essential. To be co-responsible, all must feel respected, welcome to participate, and confident they will be heard.   

 At present, just 8 Australian territorial dioceses have an in-date pastoral plan. Another 6 are preparing or updating a plan, and 2 vacant dioceses with previously developed plans await their confirmation by the new bishop (Table 1).

 Consultation and Participation

 Co-responsibility demands dialogue and participation. Hence, ‘a bishop, in his mission of fostering a dynamic, open and missionary communion, will have to encourage and develop the means of participation proposed by Canon Law and other forms of pastoral dialogue, out of a desire to listen to everyone and not simply to those who would tell him what he would like to hear’ (EG, n. 31).  Four of the canonical means of participation are obligatory and three discretionary. The latter are diocesan synods (Cc. 460-468), and diocesan and parish pastoral councils (Cc. 511-514; 536)

Diocesan Synods

Diocesan synods are sacred gatherings where the bishop, clergy, religious and laity of a local church ‘walk the road together’ (Gk. syn – ‘together’ and hodos – ‘road’) seeking the best for their community. As official instruments for effecting renewal, shaping pastoral activities, lending continuity to local traditions, and proposing and reviewing pastoral plans, they can be ‘intense moments of growth’.4 For 770 years prior to Vatican II diocesan synods were obligatory, and from1843 to 1983 Australian bishops convened 132, all exclusively clerical gatherings with no lay or female presence.

Vatican II changed that. Since 1983, diocesan bishops, after consulting their council of priests, may convene a synod whenever they judge the circumstances warrant one, but the members must include lay faithful as well as clergy and religious. Members can be ex-officio, elected or selected as determined by the bishop, all with a consultative vote only. Representatives of other Christian churches may also attend as observers. Bishops should invite agenda items from all the faithful, but ‘theses or positions not in accord with the traditional doctrine of the Church or the Magisterium, or matters reserved to the Pope or other ecclesiastical authorities’ may not be included.5  Even though matters which make it onto the agenda can be freely discussed, synods, which may last several years, can only advise and assist the bishop, who alone can legislate.

Since Vatican II synods have definitely not ‘flourished with vigour’ in Australia, and  co-responsible ‘walking the road together’ by bishops, clergy, religious and laity, even for short distances, has been negligible. Of the 112 bishops who have governed Australia ’s 28 territorial dioceses since Vatican II, only 5 have convened a diocesan synod. Five others have convened 14 diocesan ‘assemblies’ or ‘gatherings’ although the 1997 Vatican Instructions on Diocesan Synods state that such assemblies ‘should be formally situated within the canonical discipline of the Church’6 and a bishop ‘is not permitted to legislate together with diocesan assemblies’.7 Four Australian dioceses have never had a synod and another 8 have not had one since 1918. Perhaps Francis had Australia in mind when he wrote: ‘Room has not been made for laypersons to speak and act due to an excessive clericalism which keeps them away from decision-making’ (EG, n.102).

 Most Australian bishops face huge challenges, such as shortages of priests, falling Mass attendances, and diminishing trust. In these circumstances, how can they argue synods are not opportune? Besides, if ‘excessive centralisation rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach’ (EG, n.32), why do they not apply the principle of subsidiarity - handling matters at the lowest and least centralized level of competent authority – to redress this centralization?

 For Francis, a diocesan synod is ‘the most wonderful experience we can have; to belong to a people walking, journeying through history together with the Lord who walks among us’8, and in the Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops a synod is ‘the highest of all diocesan structures of participation in the bishop’s pastoral governance’.9 Why then do so many Australian bishops choose not to convene one?  

 Diocesan and Parish Pastoral Councils

 Unlike synods, diocesan pastoral councils are new structures introduced by Vatican II to enable and promote co-responsibility. But it is up to the bishop to decide whether pastoral circumstances warrant one. If he does establish a council it will be for a defined period, under his authority, and must include clergy, religious and especially lay persons, all selected or elected as determined by him, but ensuring the geographic, social, professional and apostolic areas of the diocese are represented. The council’s role is to study the pastoral issues and works of the diocese and put forward practical recommendations. It is purely consultative and has no competence in pastoral problems involving governance, faith, orthodoxy or morals. It meets at least once a year, and lapses when the diocese is vacant.

 Francis says that ‘a bishop cannot guide the diocese without a pastoral council’.10 Yet only 9 Australian bishops have a functioning council. Four others, previously established, ceased when the diocese became vacant or were not re-established by the new bishop.

 Parish pastoral councils, also new, promote co-responsibility at the basic local level. They deal with issues such as planning, staffing and strategic direction, as determined by the parish priest. Members are predominantly lay faithful, including pastoral associates, school principals, youth ministers, liturgical coordinators, but also assistant priests. They are consultative and coordinating bodies, meeting only when the parish priest presides. Though they do not govern, Francis says that ‘a parish priest cannot guide the parish without a parish [pastoral] council’.11

 In each diocese the bishop, after consulting his council of priests, decides whether parish pastoral councils will be obligatory or not. In Australia only 4 bishops have mandated parish pastoral councils; all others ‘encourage’ them.  Generally, most large parishes have a pastoral council, while many smaller parishes do not. The way they function depends largely on the individual parish priest.

 Conclusion

 Sadly, the evidence shows that Vatican II’s bold and creative vision for co-responsibility has not flourished in Australia and is more like a pipedream. Nevertheless, with Pope Francis now reemphasising the vision, perhaps it may yet become a reality.

 References:

1.       Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Rome Diocesan Synod, May 2009.

2.       Pope John Paul II, Novo Millenio Ineunte, 2001, n. 29.

3.       Ang, Daniel, ‘Faith in Our Future: Pastoral Planning in the Diocese of Parramatta ’, in The Australasian Catholic Record, April 2014, Vol. 91, No. 2, p. 132.

4.       Pope Francis, Address to Clergy, Religious and Members of Diocesan Pastoral Councils, Assisi , 4 October 2013 .

5.       Sacred Congregation for Bishops and Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instructions on Diocesan Synods, 1997, Rome , II, A, 1.  English text at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20041118_diocesan-synods-1997_en.html

6.       Ibid. Prologue.

7.       Ibid. Appendix.

8.       Pope Francis, op. cit.,

9.       Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, 2004, n. 167.

10.    Pope Francis, op. cit.

11.    Ibid.

Table 1: Structures for participation and dialogue in Australia ’s territorial dioceses, July 2014

Note:  Information in table obtained by direct contact with dioceses by phone or email, from diocesan websites, and The Official Directory of the Catholic Church in Australia , 2014-2015. At time of survey, dioceses of Broken Bay , Sale , Sydney and Townsville were vacant.

 -----------------------