It started quietly in May, in very English fashion, with a simple letter to the Tablet signed by seven English priests, who issued a ”Call to Action”. This was followed on July 18th by a London meeting of English priests, continuing the process. A further meeting planned for October will take it further, include lay Catholics and religious women.
This call to action and the movement it has initiated, have obvious parallels with the earlier moves by priests’ associations in Austria, Belgium and Ireland, and the theologians’ declaration in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, inviting comparison - but that comparison shows many contrasts, as well. This is a very English response to the crisis in the Catholic Church: cautious, restrained, polite, and definitely not confrontational.
This difference in tone was evident even in the original letter to The Tablet. Here is it’s opening :
English priests issue “A call to action”
We are a group of priests who have been meeting together because we are deeply concerned for the future of our Church, and we wish to support each other in the task of creating forums for all the baptized to contribute to the full teaching life of the Church.
The recent “universal call to holiness in Christ” for all the baptized made by our bishops at their November 2011 conference and their desire to promote a “culture of vocation” within the corporate identity of the Catholic Church, marked by a confident Catholic faith, has encouraged us to respond as follows.
The promotion of this culture of vocation must, we feel, be seen as a call to all the people of God to take responsibility for our Church. It seems to us, therefore, that our bishops and priests should actively encourage this. Even though many lay people follow courses in theology and pastoral care, there seems little opportunity for them to use the skills they have acquired for the service of our Church.
(You can read the full letter at the website of the Irish Association of Catholic Priests, where it received 109 responses in the comments thread.)
In specifically addressing the bishops’ “universal call to holiness in Christ”, they draw attention to its reference to “fostering and encouraging a culture of dialogue and solidarity”. An emphasis on dialogue is central to the English process. The letter calls, for instance, for ”discussion” of married men and the institution of the priesthood, and for “listening” to the lived experience of Catholics in developing a theology of sexuality, but does not demand change to either the rules for ordination, or to the current sexual rules.
This emphasis on dialogue and discussion strikes me as very English indeed. It also strikes me as potentially more productive than a confrontational “Call to Disobedience”, such as that which made the headlines in the Austrian Priests’ Initiative. Cardinal Schonborn’s response was notable for its recognition for the need for reform - but the specific demands were beyond his power as local primate to meet. The confrontational tone made the news worldwide, but set off a local stand-off that neither side can win. A call for dialogue however, is one that a local primate can accede to, and one that I expect will receive a sympathetic response from Archbishop Vincent Nichols for the English Church.
The Tablet letter attracted strong private response, directly to the signatories. According to a Tablet follow-up report on June 1st, more than a hundred people had responded to them within the week. This led to this week’s meeting, which was restricted (mostly) to priests and deacons, including those no longer in active ministry. (Two exceptions referred to in the invitation email appear to have been one religious sister, and a lay Catholic included in the panel of introductory speakers). Of particular interest to me as a South African, conscious of the role of the Church in the long struggle for justice and equality under the law, and later for the promotion as mediator and peace-maker between opposing factions in the political violence that preceded the first democratic elections, were the inputs by the chair of Westminster Justice and Peace, and from a priest with experience of reconciliation work in Northern Ireland. “If you want peace, work for justice“, was the slogan I heard at countless J&P meetings. That applies inside the church, as well as outside it.
London: priests’ group appeals for inclusive dialogue on future of Church
More than 70 Catholic priests and deacons gathered at a London church yesterday to pray, share concerns, and discuss the future of the Church.
The meeting at St John’s Anglican Church, Waterloo, was called following a letter in the Tablet (2 June 2012) by seven priests, speaking of the ‘universal call to holiness in Christ’ for all the baptised made by the bishops at their November 2011 conference, and their desire to promote ‘a culture of vocation’ within the corporate identity of the Catholic Church, ‘marked by a confident Catholic faith’. The authors called for a more active encouragement of lay people in the work of the Church, and expressed concern that the call for collegiality made by Vatican II has not been realised.
Fr Joe Ryan, north London parish priest and chair of Westminster Justice and Peace said he was glad to be part of the process of ”building up the body of Christ” by attending the meeting. Fr Paul Saunders from Southwark Diocese said he saw it was “part of our stewardship” to pass on and develop the teachings of Vatican II.
Fr Patrick McLaughlin who spent years in peace and reconciliation at Corrymeela in Northern Ireland quoted Antony Di Mello who spoke of the need to “combine loyalty and obedience with creativity and confrontation”. At Corrymeela, he said, they had endeavoured to work collaboratively with people from different communities - “opening up spaces where people could be listened to with respect and gentleness”. The result, he pointed out, was that Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness eventually came to work together.
In a brief presentation, theologian Mary Gray spoke of her overwhelming sense of priests with a deep love of the Church but with great concerns for the future, with an ageing priesthood, declining vocations and loss of young people. There had been euphoria after Vatican II, she said, but this had been followed by a great sense of disappointment.
“We could not have expected the failure to implement the teachings of Vatican II and the backlash that has followed”, she said. “People are confused. They see married former Anglican priests with families being ordained but Catholic seminarians cannot marry and there is no discussion about this.”
Underlying all this, she said, was the fact that people are afraid to speak, or be seen as critical in any way, for fear of very serious censure.
She advised: “As St Ignatius said: ‘go where the energy is good’. And that is - the monasteries, convents, and organisations like CAFOD”. She also advised people to express their views. Quoting Catherine of Siena she said: ‘I see that the world is destroyed through silence.’
For further information contact: [email protected]
-full report at Independent Catholic News
I was left wondering what would be the nature of this next meeting at Heythrop: would it too be restricted to priests and deacons, or would it include the rest of the Church? The answer came to me by email, which was sent to those who had associated themselves with the “Stand Up For Vatican II” meeting a couple of years ago.
After our letter to the Tablet on June 2nd, ‘A call to action’, we had a meeting for priests and deacons at which seventy or so came along. As a result, we shave now arranged A MEETING AT HEYTHROP IN LONDON ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 10TH., IN THE AFTERNOON FOR EVERYONE, PEOPLE AND PRIESTS, to discuss the issues raised in our letter and to try to find a way forward. Our hope is that we may be a voice through which our bishops may be able to hear our fears and our hopes for the future of our church.
I’ll be there.
Is this the start of an English Catholic Spring? There are fundamental differences in style and ambition, but it is nevertheless, very much part of the same movement. It’s early days yet, but it will be interesting to see how this develops.
And here in the States we await the response of the full LCWR to the CDF. Interesting times we live in, and really, a lot of this could have been avoided if the reactionaries in the Vatican had just let the Vatican II process unfold. Instead we are very close to another major schism.
Well this is quite refreshing. Last time germanic model of bring change to the church was tried guess what happened? I did not at all support the “Call to Disobedience” and “demands” of the german/austrian clergy even though I sympathized with their stances. HOW you do something is actually more important than what it is you are doing. If a child says “Give me a cookie NOW” you are going to be instantly less likely to give them a cookie than if they ask “Excuse me, may I have a cookie please?”. Not to mention, this “British” approach allows for high-clergy who sympathize with these issues to have a legitimate opportunity of giving them the stage, where as with the “germanic” style, high-clergy have literally no option but to crush the movement along with the very goals that they secretly agree with in order to maintain the unity of the Church. We must remember that what “Catholic” means is Universal, as in the opposite of national/sectarian. Catholic means “Here comes Everyone”, and everyone includes over 1 billion people. Nothing, no country, business, organization, or belief system can move easily or in any quick fashion with over a billion people in tow. Part of the problem after V2 was that the excitement caused things to move far to quickly for proper understanding and consideration - which is why the Church is suffering now. We must remember the wisdom of people like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, who were against slavery but would not free their own slaves or advocate for the abolition of slavery during the creation of the constitution, because they understood that to implement something (no matter how “right” it may be) before the bulk of the population is ready for it actually creates more damage than good. (I cant remember the quote about “tolerating the grave moral evil of slavery so that a constitution could find enough support to be passed before the country completely collapsed and lost its freedom to European powers waiting in the rafters, and that it was for the next generation to deal with the slavery issue once the country was more stable).
I disagree that the “teachings” of vatican ii failed to be implemented, I disagree VERY strongly. I find that anyone who thinks this usually has never read the actual documents of Vatican II. It was precisely that “euphoria” after the council that was talked about that was the cause of dissatisfaction that we are now experienceing. That euphoria was an in the moment, impulsive, and blind rush that lead to interpretations that were not apart of the Council’s teaching (leading many to think of the catholic faith as something that it actually was not, and thus dissapointment) and to changes that were very poorly thought-out and had no real backing from the actual Council (leading to a loss of truly catholic/universal faith and identity across the entire church, as well as other problems, and thus dissapointment). Conservatives who are opposed to vatican ii because of its negative impact on many aspects of the church that it had, and liberals who are in favor of it but disappointed with the results, both make the same mistake of failing to distinguish between the Documents of Vatican II and the so called “spirit” of Vatican II. The Documents themselves are the ONLY thing that is authoritative and were designed to be interpreted ONLY through the lens of its tradition and NOT as a “new” approach or “clean slate” or a “Changing of tradition”.There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Authoritative Documents of the Council, and they WERE and ARE implemented about as well as can be done. It is the SPIRIT of the council that has lead to the bulk of the issues facing the church today - it was an Antinomian spirit which is fundamentally incompatible with what the Catholic Church believes (which is why there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant in the first place). For example, those who believe in the “spirit of vatican II” often taken NON-authoritative comments and arguments from attendees of Vatican II as some-how relevant while sidelining actual official documents and teachings; or they will take something like the “each should follow his conscience” to mean that they can simply make up their own version of what is supposed to be a universal faith, when the Council never intended that “conscious clause” to be understood in such a way. Ultimately, it was the SPEED of the council and the extremely rapid and thoughtless implementation that has soured what was originally a good thing. if we have any sense of duty, responsibility, and love for the church and Catholic faith, then we will do everything we can to NOT make the same mistake again - we must NOT let our desire for change lead us on a ideological crusade or ride an emotional wave of euphoria, and we must NOT expect things to move quickly. Patients, forbearance, and humility are virtues in the Faith of Jesus Christ, and we have a duty to post-pone gratification to make sure that we move cautiously and methodologically enough to avoid another botched attempt to listen to what God desires for the Church.
I wonder now how much of a true dialogue and objective exploration of these issues and possibilities they are actually desiring. If, after objective and exhaustive examination, it is found that what they desire would not be practical/possible, not truly in the Church’s best interests, or somehow incompatible with unchangeable-aspects of Catholic theology, would these clergy accept that and change their minds or at least back down from their stances? Or are they calling for “dialogue” while fully expecting to have their quite demands met and won’t accept reality if it objectively proves to be in conflict with their desires? Personally, I suspect the latter unfortunately, which means that no truly objective discussion and examination can take place, merely two sides politely arguing for their personal desires and opinions to the exclusion of consistency, quality, objectivity, practicality, and logic. I fear that no matter what comes of these discussions, one side will instantly cry foul the second any decision is reached, because no one is interested in truth, reality, objectivity and long-term consequences anymore. I am hopeful for this approach, but I fear that it will end up like an American Congressional debate.