Blog Layout

DISCIPLESHIP FOR A PRIESTLY PEOPLE IN A SYNODAL CHURCH TODAY

Colm Holmes • Oct 19, 2023

Full text of Sr Joan Chittister's speech at Spirit Unbounded in Rome

   

DISCIPLESHIP FOR A PRIESTLY PEOPLE

      IN A SYNODAL CHURCH TODAY 

      joan chittister. 


THREE STORIES MAY BEST EXPLAIN THIS REFLECTION:

FIRST, 

THERE'S A STORY GOING AROUND THAT'S GOT ME A BIT WORRIED. They say that 

GOD THE FATHER IS PLANNING AN IMPORTANT 

MEETING AND WANTS TO HAVE IT IN AN IMPORTANT PLACE...SO HE CALLS JESUS AND HOLY SPIRIT TOGETHER AND SAYS "I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT GOING TO JERUSALEM FOR THE SYNOD:

 YOU KNOW. THEY'RE THE ORIGINS OF EVERYTHING;

THE VERY HISTORY ITSELF. 

THAT WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE DON'T YOU THINK?


JESUS BANGS THE GAVEL: "SURELY YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS,?! THE SON SAYS TO THE FATHER. "YOU CAN GO IF YOU WANT TO. BUT I'M NOT GOING." HE SAYS. "THEY DIDN'T WANT ME THERE THE FIRST TIME! 

THEY PAUSED TO THINK A BIT...

FINALLY, GOD THE FATHER SIGHED..... "OH, ALL RIGHT," 

HE SAYS, " I GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO GO TO ROME, AS USUAL..."

 "ROME?" THE HOLY SPIRIT SQUEALED," ROME?!" 

THAT'S TERRIFIC!" SHE SAYS, 

" I'VE BEEN DYING TO GO TO ROME.

 I HAVEN'T BEEN THERE FOR YEARS." 

                *********************

BUT THERE ARE OTHER TWO OTHER STORIES 

THAT MAY BETTER EXPLAIN 

REFLECTIONS ON DISCIPLESHIP

IN THIS INTERIM AGE:

SO LET'S BEGIN...


THE FIRST INSIGHT IS FROM THE ZEN POET BASHO

WHO WROTE:

"I DO NOT SEEK TO FOLLOW 

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THOSE OF OLD. 

I SEEK THE THINGS THEY SOUGHT."


THE SECOND INSIGHT 


IS FROM ANCIENT MONASTIC LITERATURE:


ONCE UPON A TIME, THE STORY GOES,

A TEACHER TRAVELED TO A FAR AWAY MONASTERY 

WHERE AN OLD MONASTIC 

HAD A REPUTATION FOR ASKING 

VERY PIERCING SPIRITUAL QUESTIONS.


“HOLY ONE,” THE TEACHER SAID.

”GIVE ME A QUESTION 

THAT WILL RENEW MY TIRED SOUL.”


“AH, YES,” THE OLD MONASTIC SAID,

WELL, IN THAT CASE YOUR QUESTION IS 

‘WHAT DO THEY NEED?’”


THE TEACHER WENT AWAY AND WRESTLED 

WITH THAT QUESTION FOR DAYS 

BUT THEN, DEPRESSED, AND DISAPPOINTED

HE WENT BACK TO THE OLD MONASTIC IN DISGUST.


“HOLY ONE,” THE TEACHER SAID, 

“I CAME HERE BECAUSE I’M TIRED 

AND DEPRESSED AND DRY INSIDE.

I DIDN’T COME HERE 

TO TALK ABOUT MY MINISTRY.

I CAME HERE TO TALK ABOUT 

MY SPIRITUAL LIFE.

PLEASE GIVE ME ANOTHER QUESTION:


“AH, WELL, THE OLD MONASTIC SAID,

“IN THAT CASE, THE RIGHT QUESTION 

FOR YOU IS NOT ‘WHAT DO THEY NEED?” 

THE RIGHT QUESTION FOR YOU IS

‘WHAT DO THEY REALLY NEED?”


THAT QUESTION HAUNTS ME:

WHAT DO THE PEOPLE REALLY NEED

IN A PERIOD 

WHEN THE SACRAMENTS ARE BEING LOST

IN A SACRAMENTAL CHURCH

BUT ALL APPROACHES TO THE QUESTION--

EVEN THE ADMISSION THAT THERE IS

AN ADMISSIBLE QUESTION

ABOUT THE NATURE AND MEANING

OF DISCIPLESHIP ARE BEING, SUPPRESSED--

AND BY SOME --EVEN DENIED!.


“WHAT DO THEY REALLY NEED?

HAS BECOME A HAUNTING REFRAIN IN ME

FOR MORE REASONS THAN THE PHILOSOPHICAL.


UP AT THE TOP OF A MEXICAN MOUNTAIN,

UP BEYOND MILES OF RUTTED ROAD

AND WET, FLOWING CLAY,

I VISITED AN INDIGENOUS VILLAGE

THAT WAS VISITED BY A PRIEST

ONLY ONCE EVERY YEAR......

BUT THAT WAS YEARS AGO.

NOW THE MOUNTAIN IS STILL JUST AS HIGH

BUT THE PRIEST

IS at least thirty YEARS OLDER.


 THEN TEN YEARS AGO

I SPOKE IN AN AMERICAN PARISH

OF 6000 FAMILIES--

THAT WAS BEING SERVED BY THREE PRIESTS.


BUT, THE PRIESTS TOLD ME,


THEY HAD NO PRIEST SHORTAGE IN THAT DIOCESE


WHY?!


BECAUSE THEIR BISHOP HAD JUST REDEFINED

THE RATIO OF PRIESTS TO PEOPLE

FROM ONE PRIEST TO EVERY 250 FAMILIES

TO ONE PRIEST TO EVERY 2000 FAMILIES.


 IN DIOCESE AFTER DIOCESE LIKE THAT,

PARISHES ARE BEING MERGED,

CLOSED, AND TURNED INTO 

SACRAMENTAL WAY STATIONS

SERVED BY RETIRED PRIESTS

OR MARRIED MALE DEACONS, --

BOTH OF WHICH ARE DESIGNED 

SIMPLY TO KEEP THE CHURCH MALE, 

WHETHER IT IS MINISTERING OR NOT.


THE NUMBER OF PRIESTS IS DECLINING.

THE NUMBER OF CATHOLICS IS INCREASING.

WHILE THE NUMBER OF CERTIFIED LAY MINISTERS

IS SHRINKING BECAUSE THEIR SERVICES

ARE BEING REJECTED OR REDUNDANT EVERYWHERE.


AT THE SAME TIME, OVER OUR BRIDGE INTO CANADA,

THERE’S A FIVE YEAR OLD GIRL

WHO, NOTICING THAT ALL THE PRIESTS

IN HER PARISH WERE MEN,

ASKED HER PARENTS ONE SUNDAY MORNING

WHERE THE WOMEN PRIESTS WERE.

THE MOTHER WAS CLEAR:

IN OUR CHURCH, DARLING,”

“WE DON’T HAVE GIRL-PRIESTS


THE LITTLE GIRL FROWNED, 

THOUGHT FOR A MINUTE 

AND THEN ANSWERED BACK 

JUST AS CLEARLY--

“THEN WHY DO WE GO THERE?!”


CLEARLY, THE CHURCH IS CHANGING

FROM THE GROUND UP...

EVEN WHILE IT REASSERTS

ITS CHANGELESSNESS. 


IT IS A FAR CRY FROM THE DYNAMISM

OF THE EARLY CHURCH IN WHICH 

PRISCA, AND LYDIA, THECLA, AND PHOEBE--

BECAME DISCIPLES OF PAUL AND

THE SCRIPTURE SAYS, “CONSTRAINED HIM!” TO STAY THERE AND OPEN MORE NEW HOUSE CHURCHES

WITH NO APOLOGY, NO ARGUMENT,

NO TRICKY THEOLOGICAL SHELL GAMES

ABOUT WHETHER THEY WERE 

MINISTERING‘ IN PERSONA CHRISTI’

OR ‘IN NOMINE CHRISTI.’ 


 WHAT DO THEY REALLY NEED?

THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER ARE CLEAR:

THEY NEED WHAT THEY NEEDED 

WHEN THE TEMPLE BECAME LESS IMPORTANT 

THAN THE TORAH.


THEY NEED WHAT THEY NEEDED

WHEN THE FAITH WAS MORE A HEART-BEAT

THAN AN INSTITUTION.


THEY NEED WHAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED:

THEY--NEED-- COMMUNITY,

NOT PATRIARCHAL CLERICALISM.


THEY NEED DISCIPLESHIP, 


SO WHAT IS TO BE DONE

AT A TIME LIKE THIS

WHEN WHAT IS BEING SOUGHT,

BUT WHAT IS CLEARLY POSSIBLE

ARE BEING MADE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?


THE QUESTIONS MAY SOUND NEW

BUT THE ANSWER IS AN OLD ONE.

AN ANCIENT ONE.

A TRUE ONE.

THE ANSWER IS DISCIPLESHIP.


BUT IF WE SEEK THE ORDINATION

THAT JESUS IS SEEKING TO GIVE US--

TO MARY MAGDALENE TO PREACH,

TO THE SAMARITAN WOMAN TO TEACH,

TO COUPLES SENT ON THE ROAD TO EMMAUS

WE, TOO, MUST PURSUE THREE THINGS:


FIRST, WE MUST UNDERSTAND


THE NATURE OF DISCIPLESHIP,


SECOND, WE MUST RECOGNIZE 

THE SIGNS OF TRUE DISCIPLESHIP,


AND THIRD WE MUST BE WILLING

TO GIVE OURSELVES OVER

TO WHAT DISCIPLESHIP DEMANDS NOW.

*********

CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP IS--BY NATURE-

A VERY DANGEROUS THING. 

IT HAS PUT EVERY PERSON 

WHO EVER ACCEPTED IT 

AT RISK. 


IT MADE EVERY FOLLOWER 

WHO EVER TOOK IT SERIOUSLY 

ON ALERT FOR REJECTION--, 


WHY?

BECAUSE DISCIPLESHIP CASTS 


EVERY FRAGILE NEW CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY 


IN TENSION WITH THE TIMES 

IN WHICH IT GROWS.


IN THE EARLY CHURCH

TO BE A CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY 

MEANT TO DEFY ROMAN IMPERIALISM, 

TO STRETCH JUDAISM, 

TO COUNTER PAGAN VALUES 

WITH CHRISTIAN ONES. 


IT DEMANDED VERY CONCRETE PRESENCE; 

IT TOOK GREAT COURAGE, 

UNENDING FORTITUDE 

AND VERY CLEAR PUBLIC POSTURE. 


REAL DISCIPLESHIP MEANT

THE REJECTION OF REAL THINGS

AWA THE RISK OF THE NEW:

 IT MEANT THE REJECTION

OF EMPEROR WORSHIP, 

THE FORESWEARING 

OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE, 

THE INCLUSION OF GENTILES,

THE ELIMINATION OF DIETARY LAWS,

THE DISAVOWAL OF CIRCUMCISION,--

THE ACCEPTANCE OF WOMEN!

AND THE SUPPLANTING OF LAW 

WITH LOVE,

OF NATIONALISM WITH UNIVERSALISM--

OF A CHOSEN PEOPLE 

WITH A GLOBAL PEOPLE.


THE FOLLOWING OF CHRIST 

WAS NOT, IOW, AN EXCURSION 

INTO PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT. 

IT WAS REAL AND IMMEDIATE AND EFFECTIVE.


IT WAS, IN OTHER WORDS, NOT EASY THEN

AND IT WILL NOT BE EASY NOW. 


TO FOLLOW JESUS, HERE, NOW, AND EVERYWHERE, 

IS TO FOLLOW THE ONE 

WHO TURNS THE WORLD 

UPSIDE DOWN--,

EVEN THE RELIGIOUS WORLD.


REAL DISCIPLESHIP IS A CALL TO RESPOND,

TO DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY, 

A REAL COMMUNITY....


PEOPLE WITH HIGH NEED 

FOR APPROVAL, FOR SOCIAL STATUS, 

AND PUBLIC RESPECTABILITY 

NEED/ NOT/ APPLY. 


"FOLLOWING JESUS" LEADS ALWAYS --

TO PLACES WHERE ‘NICE’ PEOPLE 

DO NOT GO, 


CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP

IS THE COMMITMENT TO LIVE A GOSPEL LIFE,

A MARGINAL LIFE.

IN THIS PLACE, AT THIS TIME--

WHATEVER THE COST. 


TO FOLLOW CHRIST 

IS TO SET ABOUT FASHIONING A WORLD 

WHERE THE STANDARDS 

INTO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN FORMED 

BECOME, TOO OFTEN, THE VERY STANDARDS, 

WE MUST ULTIMATELY FORESWEAR


FLAG AND FATHERLAND, FOR INSTANCE,

PROFIT AND POWER, 

CHAUVINISM AND SEXISM 

CLERICALISM AND AUTHORITARIANISM

justified IN THE NAME OF CHRIST 

ARE NOT CHRISTIAN VIRTUES 

WHATEVER THE SYSTEM --CHURCH OR STATE--

THAT LOOKS TO THEM FOR LEGITIMACY. 


CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP IS ABOUT 

LIVING IN THIS WORLD 

THE WAY THAT CHRIST LIVED IN HIS--

TOUCHING LEPERS,

RAISING DONKEYS FROM DITCHES

ON SABBATH DAYS,

QUESTIONING THE UNQUESTIONABLE!


DISCIPLESHIP IMPLIES A COMMITMENT 

TO LEAVE NETS AND HOMES HERE,

STATUS AND SECURITIES HERE,

TO BE NOW-- IN OUR OWN WORLD-- 

WHAT CHRIST WAS FOR HIS:


LIKE JESUS, THE TRUE DISCIPLE HEARS THE POOR, 

AND MINISTERS TO ANYONE,--

TO EVERYONE--

UNHEARD AND ABANDONED, 

LEFT TO MAKE THEIR WAY ALONE

UNNOTICED AND UNWANTED 

BY A MAJORITY WHITE PATRIARCHAL WORLD

THAT ABUSES POWER TO GARNER PROFITS--

BOTH IMMORAL AND UNCONSCIONABLE. 


WHATEVER THE BURDEN FOR EVERYONE ELSE. 


THE PRICE IS A HIGH ONE. 


DISCIPLESHIP COST MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

HIS LIFE FOR FREEING OTHERS,

COST BP. ROMERO HIS LIFE 

FOR PROTECTING THE POOR, 

AND COST THE MONKS OF TIBHIRINE THEIR LIVES 

FOR REFUSING TO MAKE ENEMIES 

THEIR ENEMIES...


INDEED, THE NATURE OF DISCIPLESHIP


IS PASSION AND RISK.


BUT TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE

OF DISCIPLESHIP IS NOT ENOUGH.


WE MUST BE MARKED BY ITS MARK.


TO THE TRUE DISCIPLE 

THE PROBLEM IS CLEAR: 

THE CHURCH MUST NOT ONLY 

PREACH THE GOSPEL, 

IT MUST NOT OBSTRUCT IT. 

IT MUST BE WHAT IT SAYS.

IT MUST DEMONSTRATE WHAT IT TEACHES.

IT MUST, THEN, BE JUDGED BY ITS OWN STANDARDS.


THE CHURCH THAT SILENTLY COLLUDES

WITH THE LOWER WAGES OF WOMEN WORKERS,

AND THE HOMELESSNESS OF THE ABANDONED , 

OR THE ECONOMIC ENSLAVEMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

IN ORDER TO GARNER SPECIAL FAVOR WITH THE STATE

BECOMES JUST ONE MORE INSTRUMENT OF THE STATE.


THE CHURCH THAT BLESSES OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS, BUT FAILS TO SPEAK OUT

FOR THOSE WHO LIVE IN LEAN-TO BARRIOS

IN ORDER TO GAIN PRIVILEGES FOR THE CHURCH

MAKES ITSELF AN OPPRESSOR AS WELL.


IN THE SAME VEIN,

RELIGION THAT PREACHES THE EQUALITY OF WOMEN

BUT DOES NOTHING TO DEMONSTRATE IT

WITHIN ITS OWN STRUCTURES,

PROCLAIMS A THEOLOGY OF EQUALITY 

THAT IS BIBLICAL BUT CONSTRUCTS FOR THE CHURCH

AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF SUPERIORITY

THAT IS OUT OF SYNC WITH ITS BEST SELF

AND SO ITSELF KEEPS DISCIPLESHIP IN BONDAGE. 

AROUND THE GLOBE.


REPEATING THE THEOLOGICAL ERRORS

THAT UNDERLAY CENTURIES 

OF CHURCH-SANCTIONED INVISIBILITY 

OF WOMEN EVERYWHERE

AND THE PAUPERIZATION OF WOMEN IN THE NAME OF 

KEEPING MOTHERHOOD IN THRALL 

AROUND THE WORLD YET

TO MALE OWNERSHIP AND INHUMAN CONTROL.

FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE JESUS 

WHO OVERTURNED TABLES IN THE TEMPLE, 

CONTENDED WITH PILATE IN THE PALACE, 

CHASTISED PETER TO PUT AWAY HIS SWORD 

AND, DESPITE THE TEACHING OF THE DAY, 

CURED THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD,

AND REFUSED TO ALLOW HIS OWN APOSTLES

TO SILENCE THE SAMARITAN WOMAN

ON WHOSE ACCOUNT, SCRIPTURE TELLS US,

“THOUSANDS BELIEVED THAT DAY.”.


INDEED, THE LIFE OF JESUS SHOWS US,

THAT THE INVISIBILITY OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

THREATENS THE VERY NATURE

OF THE CHURCH. 


REAL DISCIPLESHIP REFUSES TO LEGITIMATE 

THE SIN OF SEXISM. 

IT MUST NOT BE BASED ON CULTURAL NORMS

THAT MAKE MALENESS SUPREME;

AND IT IS CERTAINLY MUST NOT BE BASED 

ON THE LIFE OF JESUS!

ON THE CONTRARY. 


EQUALITY PITS THE HEART OF CHRIST 

AGAINST THE HEARTLESSNESS 

OF AN EMINENTLY MALE ORIENTED,

MALE DEFINED,

MALE CONTROLLED, WORLD. 

WHERE WOMEN FOLLOWED JESUS 

IN EVERY CROWD. 


INEQUALITY IS SIMPLY NOT THE MODEL

SCRIPTURE GIVES US OF TRUE DISCIPLESHIP:


THE TRUE DISCIPLE INSISTS--

AS THE FEARLESS BIBLICAL CHAMPIONS

 JUDITH AND THE LIBERATOR ESTHER

DID WHAT HERETOFORE 

HAD BEEN ACCEPTABLE ONLY FOR MEN--

WHY?! BECAUSE MEN SAID ONLY MEN COULD DO IT--

AND SO THEMSELVES BECAME 

HOLY WOMEN WARRIORS 

WHO ANNOUNCED THE EQUALITY OF GOD. 

 

ESTHER AND JUDITH--

THE SAVIORS OF THEIR PEOPLE

AS SURE AS MOSES WAS OF HIS,

GAVE THE PEOPLE WHAT

THE MEN WOULD NOT GIVE--

FREEDOM AND POWER 

AND THE FULLNESS OF HUMANITY TO ALL.


BUT THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH SAID 

NOTHING ABOUT THAT KIND OF DISCIPLESHIP

IN WOMEN

FOR ALMOST 2000 YEARS....


YOU SEE?

JESUS' "COME,FOLLOW ME" 

BECOMES ANTHEM 

OF PUBLIC EQUALITY

FROM WHICH NO ONE--NO ONE--

IS EXCLUDED

AND FOR WHICH NO RISK IS TOO GREAT.


DISCIPLESHIP IS NOT 

AN INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE OF ASSENT 

TO A BODY OF DOCTRINE. 


DISCIPLESHIP IS AN ATTITUDE OF MIND, 

IT IS A QUALITY OF SOUL, -- MALE AND FEMALE...

WHICH CHANGES A CHURCH INTO THE CHURCH

THAT IS MORE COMMUNAL, MORE GLOBAL, MORE EQUAL

THAN IT IS ECCLESIASTICAL, CLERICAL, OR MALE. 


DISCIPLESHIP CHANGES THINGS.

IT DOES NOT IGNORE THINGS AS THEY ARE-- 

SOME OF US FULLY HUMAN; SOME OF US NOT.

IT REFUSES ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING 

THAT DEFIES THE WILL OF GOD FOR HUMANITY...

NO MATTER HOW COMMON,

NO MATTER HOW HISTORICALLY PATRIARCHAL,

NO MATTER HOW OFTEN IT HAS BEEN CALLED

“THE WILL OF GOD” BY THOSE

WHO PURPORT TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT IS 

OR, MORE LIKELY, INTEND TO IMPOSE 

WHAT THEY SAY IT IS.


THE DISCIPLE TAKES AIM AT INSTITUTIONS 

THAT CALL THEMSELVES “FREEING”

BUT WHICH KEEP HALF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD --

WOMEN--

IN SPIRITUAL BONDAGE, 


TRUE DISCIPLESHIP TAKES THE SIDE 

ALWAYS,-- ALWAYS--

OF THE POOR, THE MINORITY, THE OUTCAST, 

THE OTHER,

NOT BECAUSE THE POOR AND POWERLESS 

ARE MORE VIRTUOUS 

THAN THE RICH AND POWERFUL

BUT BECAUSE THE GOD OF LOVE

WILLS FOR THE NEEDY 

WHAT THE UNCARING, IGNORES FOR THEM.


DISCIPLESHIP CUTS A RECKLESS PATH 

THROUGH CORPORATION TYPES LIKE HEROD, 

THROUGH INSTITUTION TYPES LIKE THE PHARISEES, 

THROUGH SYSTEM TYPES 

LIKE THE MONEY-CHANGERS 

AND THROUGH CHAUVINIST TYPES 

WHO SEE THEMSELVES AS APOSTLES

WHO EVEN NOW, EVEN TODAY, EVEN HERE!

IN THIS PLACE, AT THIS TIME

WANT TO SEND THE WOMEN AWAY. 


DISCIPLESHIP STANDS BARE NAKED 

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD'S MARKETPLACE 

AND, IN THE NAME OF JESUS, 

CRIES ALOUD ALL THE CRIES 

OF THE WORLD 

UNTIL SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE 

HEARS AND RESPONDS 

TO THE POOREST OF THE POOR, 

THE LOWEST OF THE LOW, 

THE MOST OUTCAST OF THE REJECTED. 


ANYTHING ELSE--ALL THE POMP,

ALL THE GOLD LACE AND RED SILK,

ALL THE RITUALS IN THE WORLD,

THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES ATTEST, 

IS CERTAINLY MEDIOCRE 

AND SURELY BOGUS DISCIPLESHIP.


AND THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM:

IT IS ONE THING, THEN, 

FOR AN INDIVIDUAL 

TO SUMMON THE COURAGE IT TAKES 

TO STAND ALONE 

IN THE EYE OF A STORM CALLED 

"THE REAL WORLD." 


IT IS ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY 

TO SEE THE CHURCH ITSELF BE ANYTHING LESS 

THAN THE LIVING CHRIST

THAT HEALED THE SICK AND RAISED THE DEAD,

AND SENT THE DISCIPLES OUT TO PREACH...

WOMEN SPIRITUAL LEADERS,

FOLLOWERS OF JESUS, 

AS WELL AS MEN.


WHY? BECAUSE THE CHURCH

OF JESUS CHRIST

IS NOT CALLED TO CLERICALISM--

WITH THE PROPER UNIFORM

ANYBODY CAN DO THAT!


NO, INSTEAD--THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

IS CALLED TO TRUE DISCIPLESHIP.


FOR THE CHURCH--

FOR YOU AND ME, THEN,

AS WELL AS THE INSTITUTION--

NOT TO MEET WHAT DISCIPLESHIP DEMANDS NOW

IS FOR THE CHURCH, FOR YOU AND ME

TO ABANDON THE DISCIPLESHIP

OUR BAPTISM DEMANDS US TO PURSUE. 


TO SEE A CHURCH OF CHRIST 

IGNORE THE LITTLE ONES 

OR REFUSE THE INVISIBLE THEIR DUE, 

AND SO INSTITUTE THE VERY SYSTEMS IN ITSELF 

THAT IT PURPORTS TO DESPISE IN SOCIETY, 

IS TO SEE NO CHURCH AT ALL. 


IN THIS KIND OF CHURCH, 

THE GOSPEL HAS BEEN 

LONG REDUCED TO THE CATECHISM. 


IN THIS KIND OF CHURCH, 

PROPHECY DIES ,

AND JUSTICE WHIMPERS ,

AND THE TRUTH BECOMES TOO DIM 

FOR THE SEARCHING HEART TO SEE.


AS A RESULT,

NEW LIFE QUESTIONS ARE EMERGING 

WITH STARTLING IMPACT AND BEING IGNORED:

WILL OUR CHILDREN SURVIVE CLIMATE CHANGE?

WILL OUR GENERATION PROVIDE ENOUGH

FOOD FOR THE WHOLE WORLD?

WILL WE ALLOW IMMIGRANTS PLACE

AND PEOPLE OF COLOR OFFICE

WHERE WE ALL MAY GROW TOGETHER?

WILL WE OURSELVES PUT DOWN 

OUR OWN RELIGIOUS SWORDS

AND BECOME "THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY" 

RATHER THAN

CHRISTIAN ENEMIES?


AND THE GREATEST QUESTION OF THEM ALL 

IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE WOMEN?. 

TO HALF THE INTELLIGENT, THE VISIONARY, THE WISE,--

TO THE OTHER HALF POPULATION OF THE GLOBE.


RIGHT NOW WOMEN ARE MOST OF THE POOR, 


MOST OF THE REFUGEES, 

MOST OF THE UNEDUCATED, 

MOST OF THE BEATEN AND BLOODIED,

MOST OF THE REJECTED, 

MOST OF THE ABSENT DECISION-MAKING VOICES 

EVEN IN THE CHURCH

WHERE EDUCATED, DEDICATED, COMMITTED WOMEN

ARE IGNORED YET--EVEN IN THE PRONOUNS

OF THE MASS!


WHERE IS THE PRESENCE OF JESUS 

TO THE ABANDONED WOMAN, 

TO THE WOMAN ALONE, 

TO THE WOMAN WHOSE QUESTIONS, CRIES 

AND LIFE EXPERIENCE 

ARE NO PLACE TO BE SEEN

IN THE SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD 

WHILE THE CHURCH SAYS NOTHING

EXCEPT OF COURSE TO BE DEFINED 

AS A SECOND KIND OF HUMAN NATURE, 

NOT QUITE AS COMPETENT, 

NOT QUITE AS VALUED, 

NOT QUITE AS HUMAN, 

NOT QUITE AS GRACED BY GOD 

AS MEN ARE?


3. WHAT DOES THE THEOLOGY 

OF DISCIPLESHIP DEMAND HERE? 

WHAT DOES THE THEOLOGY OF 

A PRIESTLY PEOPLE 

IMPLY HERE? 


ARE WOMEN SIMPLY HALF A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST? 

TO BE HALF COMMISSIONED, 

HALF NOTICED, 

HALF VALUED

AND HALF ACCEPTABLE. 


IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SITUATIONS, THERE ARE, 

CONSEQUENTLY, QUESTIONS 

IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY TODAY 

THAT CANNOT BE MASSAGED UUT OF EXISTENCE

BY FOOTNOTES, 

ANY LONGER;


NOR OBSCURED BY JARGON, ANY MORE;

NOR MADE PALATABLE TO THE CONSCIOUS

BY OUR RETREAT TO “FAITH” ANYMORE.


ON THE CONTRARY, 

BEFORE THESE ISSUES THE FOOTNOTES FALTER, 

FAITH ITSELF DEMANDS THE QUESTION. 


THE DISCIPLESHIP OF WOMEN 

IS THE QUESTION 

THAT IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.


INDEED, THE DISCIPLESHIP 

OF THE CHURCH IN REGARD TO WOMEN 

IS THE QUESTION THAT WILL, IN THE LONG RUN, 

PROVE THE CHURCH ITSELF. 


IN THE WOMAN'S QUESTION 

THE CHURCH IS FACING 

ONE OF ITS MOST SERIOUS CHALLENGES 

TO DISCIPLESHIP 

SINCE THE EMERGENCE OF THE SLAVERY QUESTION

WHEN WE ARGUED THEN, TOO,

THAT SLAVERY 

WAS THE WILL OF GOD!


THE MAJOR QUESTION 

FACING THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY TODAY

IS WHAT DOES DISCIPLESHIP REALLY MEANS 

IN A CHURCH 

THAT WANT SILENT WOMEN IN A WORLD

THAT NEEDS THINKING, COMMITTED, CARING

COURAGEOUS ONES

LIKE MARY OF NAZARETH, MARY MAGDALEN, 

AND THE DEACONS 

PRISCA, LYDIA, THECLA, PHOEBE

TO GATHER THE CHURCH ANEW.


IF DISCIPLESHIP IS REDUCED TO MALENESS

WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE REST 

OF THE CATHOLIC DISPENSATION?. 

IF ONLY MEN CAN REALLY LIVE DISCIPLESHIP 

TO THE FULLEST, 

WHAT IS THE USE OF A WOMAN 

ASPIRING TO THE DISCIPLESHIP 

BAPTISM IMPLIES,-- 

NO! CORRECTION:--DEMANDS,--

BUT DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE IN THE 

LIFE OF THE CHURCH AT ALL?



WHAT DOES IT MEAN 

FOR THE WOMEN THEMSELVES 

WHO ARE FACED WITH REJECTION, DEVALUATION 

AND A DEBATABLE THEOLOGY 

BASED ON THE REMNANTS 

OF A BAD BIOLOGY THEOLOGIZED.


WHAT DO WE DO WHEN A CHURCH

Toys with THE EQUALITY OF WOMEN -

A READING HERE, DISTRIBUTION OF EUCHARIST THERE- 

BUT BUILDS ITSELF ON STRUCTURES 

THAT ASSURE THEIR INEQUALITY. 


WHAT, IN FACT, DOES THE REJECTION OF WOMEN 

AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE CHURCH 

MEAN FOR MEN 

WHO CLAIM TO BE ENLIGHTENED 

BUT CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE VERY SYSTEM 

THAT MOCKS HALF THE HUMAN RACE? 


WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE CHURCH 

THAT CLAIMS TO BE A FOLLOWER OF THE JESUS 

WHO HEALED ON THE SABBATH 

AND RAISED WOMEN FROM THE DEAD

AND CONTENDED WITH THE TEACHERS OF THE FAITH--


AND FINALLY --

WHAT DOES IT MEAN 

FOR A SOCIETY BADLY IN NEED 

OF A COSMIC WORLDVIEW 

ON THE MORNING OF A GLOBAL AGE? 


THE ANSWERS ARE DISCOURAGINGLY CLEAR 

ON ALL COUNTS. 


CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP 

IS NOT SIMPLY IN DANGER 

OF BEING STUNTED. 

DISCIPLESHIP HAS, IN FACT, BECOME THE BARRIER

TO SOMETHING THE CHURCH ITSELF TEACHES I

IS REQUIRED OF US ALL--


WOMEN ARE BEGINNING TO WONDER 

IF DISCIPLESHIP 

HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM 

AT ALL. 

AND THEREIN LIES THE CONTEMPORARY QUESTION 

OF DISCIPLESHIP. 


SOME CONSIDER FAITHFULNESS 

TO THE GOSPEL 

TO MEAN DOING WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE. 


OTHERS FIND FAITHFULNESS 

ONLY IN BEING WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN. 


THE DISTINCTION IS CRUCIAL 

TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF TRADITION. 


THE DISTINCTION IS ALSO ESSENTIAL 

TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF DISCIPLESHIP 

IN THE MODERN CHURCH.


WHEN "THE TRADITION" 

BECOMES SYNONYMOUS WITH "THE SYSTEM" 

AND MAINTAINING THE SYSTEM 

BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT 

THAN MAINTAINING THE SPIRIT OF THE TRADITION, 

DISCIPLESHIP SHRIVELS 

AND BECOMES AT BEST "FIDELITY" 

TO THE PAST 

BUT NOT DEEP-DOWN COMMITMENT 

TO THE PRESENCE 

OF THE LIVING CHRIST HERE AND NOW

CONFRONTING THE LEPROSIES OF THE AGE. 


THE WORLD INTO WHICH JESUS WAS BORN

CALLED THE BLIND AND DISEASED SINFUL, 

A FEMALE CHILD USELESS, 

A MENSTRUATING WOMAN UNCLEAN, 

AND SO ALL OF THEM MARGINAL 

TO THE SYSTEM;

CONDEMNED TO THE FRINGES OF LIFE, 

BARRED FROM THE HEART OF THE TEMPLE. 


BUT JESUS TAKES EACH OF THEM 

TO HIMSELF, 

DESPITE THE LAWS, 

REGARDLESS OF THE CULTURE, 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE DISAPPROVAL 

OF THE SPIRITUAL NOTABLES OF THE AREA 

AND FILLS THEM WITH HIMSELF

AND SENDS THEM AS HIMSELF

OUT TO THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS

OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.. 


TO BE DISCIPLES OF JESUS 

MEANS THAT WE MUST DO THE SAME. 


DISCIPLESHIP INFERS, REQUIRES NO LESS 

THAN THE CONFIRMING, ORDAINING, LOVE OF JESUS 

FOR EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE.


BUT THEN WHO CAN DARE

TO TAKE UPON THEMSELVES

THE AUDACIOUS RIGHT TO DRAW LIMITS 

AROUND THE WILL OF GOD

FOR THOSE WE CALL USELESS, 

INCOMPETENT, UNLOVABLE.. 


DISCIPLESHIP AND THE AUDACITY OF FAITH

 ARE OF A PIECE. 

TO SAY THAT WE BELIEVE 

THAT GOD LOVES THE POOR, 

JUDGES IN THEIR BEHALF, 

WILLS THEIR DELIVERANCE 

BUT DO NOTHING OURSELVES 

TO LIFT THE WEIGHT OF REJECTION

FOR THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED, 

THE LGBTQI AND THE WOUNDEDNESS OF THEM.


TO IGNORE THEIR PLEAS, 

TO QUESTION THEIR COURAGE, 

TO TURN OUR BACKS ON THEIR BEHALF 

IS TO PROFER AN EMPTY FAITH INDEED. 


TO SAY THAT GOD IS LOVE 

AND NOT OURSELVES LOVE 

AS GOD LOVES 

MAY WELL BE CATHOLICISM

BUT IT IS NOT CHRISTIANITY. 


TO PREACH A THEOLOGY OF EQUALITY

TO SAY THAT ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL IN GOD'S SIGHT 

BUT AT THE SAME TIME MAINTAIN 

A THEOLOGY OF INEQUALITY, 

A SPIRITUALITY OF DOMINATION,

THAT BARS HALF THE HUMAN RACE 

ON THE BASIS OF GENDER--

THAT SAYS THAT WOMEN HAVE NO PLACE 

IN THE DOMINION OF THE CHURCH

AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE--

AND ALL OF THIS IN THE NAME OF GOD ....

IS TO LIVE A LIE. 


BUT IF DISCIPLESHIP IS THE FOLLOWING OF JESUS, 

BEYOND ALL BOUNDARIES, AT ALL COSTS, 

FOR THE BRINGING OF THE REIGN OF GOD, 

FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT 

OF RIGHT RELATIONSHIPS, 

THEN TO GROUND A WOMAN'S CALLING 

TO FOLLOW CHRIST 

ON HER ABILITY TO LOOK LIKE JESUS 

OBSTRUCTS THE VERY THING 

THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED TO DO. 


IT OBSTRUCTS A WOMAN'S ABILITY 

TO FOLLOW CHRIST TO THE FULL

TO GIVE HER LIFE FOR THE OTHERS,

TO BLESS AND PREACH AND SACRIFICE

AND BUILD COMMUNITY

“IN HIS NAME”--

AS THE DOCUMENTS ON PRIESTHOOD from VAT II

SAY THAT A PRIESTLY PEOPLE MUST DO.


AND IT DOES IT 

IN DEFIANCE OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF. 

HOW CAN A CHURCH SUCH AS THIS 

CALL CONVINCINGLY TO THE WORLD 

IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE 

TO PRACTICE A JUSTICE 

IT DOES NOT PRACTICE ITSELF. 


HOW IS IT THAT THE CHURCH 

CAN WITH INTEGRITY CALL OTHER INSTITUTIONS 

TO DEAL WITH WOMEN 

AS FULL HUMAN BEINGS 

MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD 

WHEN THEIR HUMANITY IS PRECISELY 

WHAT THE CHURCH ITSELF HOLDS AGAINST THEM. 

IN THE NAME OF GOD. 


IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION 

OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS. 

IT IS THE QUESTION WHICH, 

LIKE THE CREATION OF WOMEN, 

BRINGS THE CHURCH TO THE TEST. 


FOR THE CHURCH TO BE PRESENT 

TO THE WOMAN'S QUESTION, 

TO MINISTER TO IT, TO BE DISCIPLE TO IT, 

THE CHURCH MUST ITSELF 

BECOME CONVERTED TO THE ISSUE,

IN FACT, THE CHURCH MUST BECOME CONVERTED 

BY THE ISSUE. 4000*************************************************


MEN WHO DO NOT TAKE 

THE WOMAN'S ISSUE SERIOUSLY 

MAY BE PRIESTS 

BUT THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DISCIPLES. 


THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE 'OTHER CHRISTS:' 

NOT THE CHRIST BORN OF A WOMAN. 

NOT THE CHRIST 

WHO COMMISSIONED WOMEN TO PREACH HIM. 


NOT THE CHRIST WHO TOOK FACULTIES 

FROM A WOMAN AT CANA. 

NOT THE CHRIST WHO SENT WOMEN 

TO PREACH RESURRECTION TO APOSTLES 

WHO WOULD NOT BELIEVE IT THEN

AND DO NOT BELIEVE IT NOW.


NOT THE CHRIST WHO SENT THE HOLY SPIRIT 

ON MARY THE WOMAN 

AS WELL AS ON PETER THE MAN,

NOT THE CHRIST WHO ANNOUNCED HIS MESSIAHSHIP 

AS CLEARLY TO THE SAMARITAN WOMAN

AS TO THE ROCK THAT THEN SHATTERED.


IF THIS IS THE JESUS 

WHOM WE AS CHRISTIANS, AS CHURCH, 

ARE TO FOLLOW, 

THEN THE DISCIPLESHIP OF THE CHURCH 

IS NOW MIGHTILY IN QUESTION.


INDEED, THE POET BASHO WRITES: 

"I DO NOT SEEK 

TO FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS 

OF THOSE OF OLD. 

I SEEK THE THINGS THEY SOUGHT."

***************************************************

DISCIPLESHIP DEPENDS 

ON OUR BRINGING THE WILL OF GOD FOR HUMANKIND 

TO THE QUESTIONS OF THIS AGE 

AS JESUS DID TO HIS. 

AS LONG AS TRADITION IS USED TO MEAN FOLLOWING 

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF OUR PAST 

RATHER THAN SEEKING TO MAINTAIN 

THE SPIRIT OF THE CHRIST IN THE PRESENT, 

THEN IT IS UNLIKELY 

THAT WE WILL PRESERVE MORE 

THAN THE SHELL OF THE CHURCH.


THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE UNIVERSALISM 

OF HUMANITY ACROSS DIFFERENCES 

HAS BECOME THE THREAD 

THAT BINDS THE WORLD TOGETHER 

IN A GLOBAL AGE. 

WHAT WAS ONCE A HIERARCHY OF HUMANKIND 

IS COMING TO BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS: 

THE OPPRESSION OF HUMANKIND

WHILE ON THE HORIZON OF COSMOS

THE HUMANIZATION 

OF THE HUMAN RACE IS UPON US. 


THE ONLY QUESTION FOR THE CHURCH NOW 

IS WHETHER THE HUMANIZATION 

OF THE HUMAN RACE 

WILL LEAD AS WELL 

TO THE CHRISTIANIZATION 

OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

OTHERWISE, DISCIPLESHIP WILL DIE 

AND THE INTEGRITY, THE TRUTH, 

THE JESUS LIFE OF THE CHURCH WITH IT.


WE MUST TAKE DISCIPLESHIP SERIOUSLY 

OR WE SHALL LEAVE THE CHURCH OF THE FUTURE 

WITH FUNCTIONARIES --

BUT WITHOUT DISCIPLES. 


THE FACT IS THAT CHRISTIANITY 

LIVES IN CHRISTIANS, NOT IN CATECHISMS, 

NOT IN DOCUMENTS CALLED ‘DEFINITIVE’ 

TO HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE--

 AT BEST--TIME-BOUND.

NOT EMBODIED IN PLATITUDES ABOUT 

“SPECIAL VOCATIONS,”

NOT IN OLD ERRORS 

DIGNIFIED AS ‘TRADITION.’ 


THE NEW FACT OF LIFE IS THAT

DISCIPLESHIP TO WOMEN 

AND THE DISCIPLESHIP OF WOMEN 

IS KEY TO THE DISCIPLESHIP 

OF THE REST OF THE CHURCH. 


THE QUESTIONS ARE CLEAR. 

THE ANSWER IS OBSCURE AND UNCERTAIN 

BUT CRUCIAL TO THE FUTURE OF A CHURCH

THAT CLAIMS TO BE THE ETERNAL PRESENCE

OF THE LIVING JESUS.


A GROUP SUCH AS THIS, SUCH AS YOU,

AT A TIME SUCH AS THIS--

A PRIESTLY PEOPLE 

IN A GROWINGLY PRIESTLESS PERIOD--

MUST KEEP THE TOTAL VISION

CLEARLY IN MIND.


BUT WE MUST ALSO KEEP THE TASKS

OF THE PRESENT CLEARLY IN HAND:


AND THE TASK OF THE PRESENT

IS NOT PREPARATION 

FOR PRIESTLY ORDINATION

BUT FOR THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS

THE FESTERING QUESTION

OF WHETHER OR NOT WOMEN ARE FIT MATTER

TO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT OF ORDERS.


NO, THE TASK OF A SYNODAL CHURCH 

AT A TIME SUCH AS THIS

IS TO GO ON YOURSELVES IN THE CO-CREATION

of A NEW COSMIC THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH .


WE NEED A GROUP FREE OF CENTURY-OLD MANDATUMS

THAT WILL ORGANIZE SEMINARS,

HOLD PUBLIC DEBATES IN THE STYLE 

OF THE GREAT MEDIEVAL DISPUTATIONS 

ON THE FULL HUMANITY 

OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES....


HOLD TEACH-INS,

SPONSOR PUBLICATIONS,

WRITE BOOKS on the subject,

POST EDUCATIONAL WEB SITES,

GATHER DISCUSSION GROUPS

AROUND THE TOPICS

OF WHETHER OR NOT INFALLIBILITY WAS INFALLIBLE

WHEN THEY SAID IT WAS...


CHRISTIAN SENSITIVITY TO THE SENSUS FIDELIUM,’

AND THE CLEAR EXCLUSION OF WOMEN

FROM THE RESTORATION OF 

THE PERMANENT DIACONATE--

AN OFFICIAL MANNER OF DISCIPLESHIP FOR WOMEN

INCIDENTALLY--

IS MORE THAN AWARE OF ITS 

HAS ANCIENT THEOLOGY, HISTORY, 

RITUAL, LITURGY AND TRADITION

FIRMLY, FULLY AND CLEARLY 

ON ITS SIDE

AS IT DID 2000 YEARS AGO!!


CLEARY, IT’S TIME 

TO BRING INTO THE LIGHT OF DAY

THE DISCUSSIONS THAT LURK 

BEHIND EVERY CHURCH DOOR,

IN EVERY SEEKING HEART.


IF AS VATICAN II SAYS,

PREACHING AND COMMUNITY BUILDING,

ARE THE FOUNDATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT,

THEN PROCLAIMING THE COMING

OF THIS NEW SYNODAL CHURCH, 

SACRIFICING OURSELVES TO BRING IT,

AND SHAPING A COMMUNITY

NEW WITH THE NOTION OF A NEW KIND OF PRIEST 

AND PERMANENT WOMAN DEACONS

MAY BE THE GREATEST PRIESTLY SERVICE OF THEM ALL 

RIGHT NOW.


SO WE MUST KEEP TURNING,

TURNING, AND TURNING

IN THE DIRECTION OF DISCIPLESHIP---

AS WOMEN ALWAYS HAVE...

BUT DIFFERENTLY--AND ALONE.


FOR AS BASHO SAYS,

WE DO NOT, INDEED, SEEK TO FOLLOW 

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THOSE OF OLD.

WE SEEK THE THINGS THEY SOUGHT--

THE FULLNESS OF LIFE

BOTH HUMAN AND SPIRITUAL.


WE DON’T SEEK TO DO

WHAT THEY REALLY NEED.

NO, WE NEED MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

WE NEED NOW TO DO

WHAT THEY REALLY, REALLY NEED.


AND THAT IS A SYNODAL CHURCH--

THAT LISTENS.


GO ALL OF YOU AND DO IT NOW!!!

FOR AS WE GO INTO THIS MOMENT,

REMEMBER ...

THAT IF THE PEOPLE of God WILL LEAD,

EVENTUALLY....

THE LEADERS WILL FOLLOW...


by Colm Holmes 28 Apr, 2024
AGM on Saturday 1 June 2024 at 2pm in Avila and via ZOOM
by Colm Holmes 26 Apr, 2024
One of the leading thinkers in the Irish Church welcomes the Pope’s ‘change of culture’ but warns that it will peter out unless there are reforms to structures and institutions
by Colm Holmes 17 Apr, 2024
AGM in-person as well as on ZOOM
by Colm Holmes 15 Apr, 2024
Press Release 15 April 2024: Response to the Vatican letter "Dignitas Infinita"
by Colm Holmes 06 Apr, 2024
Overall control of the Study Groups should be given to the Synodal Office
by Colm Holmes 02 Apr, 2024
Dear Cardinal Mario Grech, We welcome and embrace ‘Synodality’ as a way of ‘being Church’ that is at once both ancient and new in our tradition. We support the three key themes of the Synodal Process: Communion, Participation and Mission . We understand that it is “how” we relate to one another in the Church, our capacity to ‘be together’ in harmony and unity (i.e. Communion), that will help us fulfil our various responsibilities and roles (i.e. Participation) and by doing so empower us as “Church” to bear witness to the love of God in the world and to the unity of all humankind in God (i.e Mission). We are a network of Catholics who treasure our faith tradition and love the Church because, as our name states; we are all the Church. We wish to contribute constructively to its renewal and reform and have good relations with all. It is because we care so deeply about the Church and its mission that we have felt compelled over the years to speak up and question the injustice of structures, practices and teachings that have blocked, rather than channelled, God’s grace in the world. Combined with a lack of accountability and a culture of secrecy, these unjust structures, practices and teachings have contributed (among other egregious wrongs) to the clerical abuse of children and vulnerable adults, and the institutionalised discrimination of half the world’s population, women. Since the Second Vatican Council, it is understood that all the baptised regardless of the different ministries and responsibilities they hold, share a foundational equality by virtue of their common baptism. Contrary to popular perception, the Church (in theory at least) is neither a democracy nor a dictatorship but an ordered community where power and authority are exercised as Christian service and not power over anyone, in accord with the Gospel message. Vatican II has been crucial in reshaping our understanding of “Church” and highlighting the co-responsibility of the laity, along with the hierarchy, in working for its renewal and reform. By highlighting the baptismal dignity and equality of every baptised person, the Council has helped us to more fully appreciate that the Holy Spirit works and speaks through each lay woman and man in the Church, as much as it does through each member of the male hierarchy. The significance of this insight is that the sensus fidelium (i.e the sense of faith in all the faithful) is now regarded to be as vital a part of the teaching authority of the church (i.e the magisterium) as that of the hierarchy. Pope Francis is the first Pope to promote the sensus fidelium in the Church and his global Synodal Process explicitly gives expression to it. It is regrettable however that this shift in the internal dynamics of the Church’s magisterium has not been communicated better or explained clearly to the majority of Catholics. Many remain unaware that the teaching authority of the Church is no longer the exclusive preserve of the hierarchy. They do not know that the bishops and the Pope are obliged to engage in meaningful consultation with all the People of God before making key decisions. Significantly, the change does not diminish the role of discernment assigned to the bishops by the Council, but it does oblige them to anchor their discernment in an authentic and faithful listening to the People of God. And this is where we have a problem. It is one thing to be told “We are all the Church together” and another to experience the reality of such declarations. The most glaring example of this incoherence is the way women are treated. While we acknowledge the inclusion of 54 Women amongst 70 non-bishops voting at the Synod, we must also express deep disappointment and concern at the lack of progress so far. Although the ordination of women priests was mentioned in many countries, it was not included on the agenda for the Global Synod in Rome and most reports on the female diaconate have never been published. This is simply not good enough. It is not in the spirit of synodality to ignore the concerns of women who make up half of the world’s population. We call on the bishops to renew their commitment to the Synodal Process; to authentically listen (i.e. listen from the heart) to their sisters in the Church, to relinquish all attachments to power and privilege and to stop clinging to an out-dated model of church. The Church can not be a credible or effective sign of God’s love and justice in the world as long as its own structures and processes lack transparency and discriminate against half the membership of the baptised faithful (i.e. women, half the population of the world). Instead of criticising society to change and act differently, it is time for the Church (i.e the whole church, the ordained and the laity) to become the change it proclaims about God’s peace and justice in the world and to lead by example in the way it organises itself at every level. We Are Church International calls for the following steps representing concrete signs of synodality to be endorsed by the Synod in October 2024: 1. Shared decision making with equal numbers of laity and clerics at all Synods, Assemblies and Councils. 2. Opening all Ministries to women and to married persons, regardless of their sexual orientation. 3. Appointment of bishops to be overseen by committees of lay and clerics. 4. Unity in Diversity allowing countries to deal with their respective important concerns such as the ones mentioned in 1. - 3. above in accordance with their culture and the legitimate concerns of the believers in these countries. 5. Draw up a Church Constitution setting out the rights and responsibilities of all the people of God and a new governance structure. WICR have prepared a very good draft: https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/wicr__background_and_sources_of_proposed_constitution__2022.pdf Colm Holmes, Chair We are Church International Email: colmholmes2020@gmail.com Phone: +353 86606 3636 Dr Martha Heizer, Vice-Chair We are Church International Email: martha@heizer.at Phone: +43 650 4168500 W www.we-are-church.org We Are Church International (WAC) founded in Rome in 1996, is a global coalition of national church reform groups. It is committed to the renewal of the Roman Catholic Church based on the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the theological spirit developed from it.
by Colm Holmes 31 Mar, 2024
Archbishop of Dublin Dermot Farrell homily on 27 March 2024
by The Japan Mission Journal, Spring 2024 26 Mar, 2024
Soline Humbert: Tensions between Love and Law I have neither the desire nor the competence to write an analysis of Fiducia supplicans (FS). Instead, I would like to share some real-life stories which have resurfaced for me upon reading the document. The first wedding I ever attended was that of my aunt and the one I came to call my uncle. I was four years of age. I knew they were getting married, but not that it was a civil wedding, ‘irregular’ in the eyes of the church since my uncle was a divorcee. The years passed by, they had a child, but the marriage broke up soon after. The separation and subsequent divorce were quite painful and left a lot of bitterness in my aunt. Three decades passed without any contact; then my uncle somewhat unexpectedly reconnected with his daughter. I was close to my aunt, and I saw how this challenged her deeply, including at the level of her faith. She had kept all these years a diary of the breakup, which contained many painful entries. As she prayed she understood she should let go of it, which she eventually did. Soon after, she met up with her former husband, and much to everyone 's surprise and especially hers, their love was rekindled from the ashes. Now in their early eighties they decided they would remarry. My aunt now found herself again in an ‘irregular union,’ since my uncle remained a divorcee (from his first wife). For the second time I attended their wedding which was, again, only a civil wedding. They were so much in love and so close, that people thought that they were celebrating a diamond wedding anniversary, not a wedding! They looked as if they had spent the last fifty years together. It was the eve of Pentecost and I could see the imprint of the Holy Spirit everywhere in the love between them. Their love which had died had literally been resurrected and there was so much healing and joy. A wonderful miracle. But for the church authorities this was a sinful relationship, akin to adultery. There could be no ecclesiastical blessing. And my aunt would from now on be again excluded from receiving Communion. Until my uncle died that is, a few years later In this story, the Canon Law concern with order and regularity cuts athwart the human development and the decisions based on love. The sharp distinction between those in a ‘regular’ union celebrated and blessed in church, and the others, the ‘irregulars,’ reminds me of the label put on some children, until recently, dividing them into ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate.’ Pope Francis seems aware that the categories of Canon Law are not necessarily the prism though which God views our relationships, and that there are relationships that just do not fit into them but need pastoral accompaniment. And this leads me to the other category of people mentioned in FS, the category more highlighted in discussions: same-sex couples. The early headlines shouted: ‘Vatican blessings for gay couples!’ I welcomed what appeared to be a more inclusive approach after the CDF document of a few years ago (‘No blessings for gays’), which it is. And for the first time the word couple is used. But I was dismayed when I started reading the list of all the conditions and restrictions. A good friend of mine, who is gay, called it: ‘a mean, little blessing.’ Of course that may be better than no blessing at all, just as a crumb of bread is better than a stone, but I do not recognize in it the extravagant generosity of the God of Jesus. I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry when reading the expanded list of restrictions in the subsequent clarification from the Dicastery, because of pushback about the very notion that gay couples could be blessed at all. I couldn’t believe it ended up specifying the blessings would be all of 10-15 seconds. This reminded me of another story, about my grandmother-in-law’s wedding day, 100 years ago. Decades later, when she spoke about it you could still hear some of the pain and hurt. She, a Roman Catholic had married a member of the Church of Ireland (Anglican) in what was then called a ‘mixed marriage.’ Yes, they had received a nuptial blessing. But it had been at 9 o'clock, in the sacristy, with no guests. Another mean, little blessing,’ as prescribed by canon law. An addendum is that when her husband died she was advised by the parish priest not to go to his funeral service because it was in a Protestant church, and therefore would be gravely sinful. She went anyway! FS went out of its way to stress the difference between the pastoral and the doctrinal, and that blessings belong to the pastoral dimension and do not affect in any way the doctrinal teachings of the Church. There is no change, no development, and it may be over-sanguine to imagine that this is step in that direction; it could even by a ploy for fobbing it off. Love cannot be controlled, and we need a good dose of humility when we claim we know what God's plan is for people. Besides a long life, two decades in the ministry of spiritual direction have shown me that the ways of God don’t fit in neatly in our ‘regular/irregular’ church categories. The Spirit blows where it wills, and so does Love. Let us celebrate it, rejoice in it, give thanks for it wherever we find it. As the late Fr Mychal Judge OFM asked: ‘Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?’ 2. Joseph S. O’Leary: Accompaniment, Dialogue, and Compassion The clergy have taken responsibility for matrimony not only in sacramental celebration of weddings, including preparation for marriage, but also in for the canon law aspect, ensuring that couples were validly married; in many countries married in church counted as valid in the State’s eyes as well. When Pope Francis deplores ‘clericalism’ one of the things he means is a bureaucratic concern with order and regularity that is harshly unsympathetic with people in irregular situations—single mothers, divorcees, priests awaiting laicization—, shunning them rather than accompanying them. The various conundrums that can arise, especially in countries where divorce is easily available, require a response. Pope draws on the category of blessing to bridge the gap between those whose marital lives are in order and those who live with messy situations. Blessings are not sacraments but ‘among the most widespread and evolving sacramentals’ (Fiducia supplicans [FS], 8). ‘Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything’ (FS, 27). The short document does not develop a rich, sophisticated theological concept comparable with Augustine on Grace or Luther on Justification by faith. Blessing is invoked for a practical purpose, to close the gap between love and law, between boldly welcoming all and continuing to police moral and legal behaviors. The distinction between objective and subjective morality (whereby something objectively immoral could be ‘diminished in guilt, inculpable, or subjectively defensible,’ as Paul VI put it), which allowed condemnation of artificial birth control in principle and pastoral accommodation of it in practice, might be seen as a similar practical solution that avoids facing an issue with honesty, in open discussion. In the present case the most remarkable tension, or contradiction, is between the rejection of blessings of same-sex couples, characterized as sinful, only a few years ago and the encouragement of such blessings in the new document. The most striking and innovating feature of FS is that it addresses a kind word to gays and lesbians, something the Vatican has not done officially since it began to address same-sex questions explicitly in 1975 (Persona humana), and most ambitiously in a treatise on ‘the problem of homosexuality’ in 1986. Gays and lesbians appeared on the Vatican radar screen only as a problem for the CDF’s sense of order, and there was no sign of dialogue with the people concerned or of pastoral accompaniment of them in their path in life. On a flight back from Africa last year, Francis told reporters: ‘People with homosexual tendencies are children of God. God loves them. God is walking with them. To condemn someone like this is a sin. To criminalize someone for homosexual tendencies is an injustice’ (Wall Street Journal, 5 February, 2023). Such an utterance says almost nothing, but it stresses the idea of accompaniment, and this is also the central thrust of FS and of the Pope’s pastoral policy in general. FS is the first time this policy has got an official articulation, minimal as it is; the danger is that it may be seen as solving the issue for now, instead of engaging in the human dialogue and theological rethinking that is required. Still talking of ‘someone like this’ (an embarrassed locution), the papal language does not yet really amount to listening or dialogue, since there is no forum for such dialogue in the Church (not even in the recent Synod). Gay couples have been blessed by common sense pastors, and would be regarded by many of the clergy with admiration and envy. They have wrongfooted Vatican teaching by the unexpected success of their relationships and their impact on society. But there is a group whose need is greater and that FS does not mention, namely the T in LGBT, suffering from what the doctors call ‘gender dysphoria.’ Cardinal Fernández rather shockingly promised conservative critics unhappy with FS that they will be happier with a forthcoming document condemning ‘gender ideology’ and surrogacy. This kind of horse trading and scapegoating is inappropriate in dealing with real human beings and their suffering. I have a friend who is biologically female but identifies as a man and has had his name legally changed to match that gender identity. The problems and sufferings he has had to face are crushingly severe. Here too the church has a duty of accompaniment and dialogue, not pontification and condemnation. A few years ago our former Irish President Mary McAleese, an outspoken Catholic woman, as well as Ssenfuka Joanita Warry, a brave activist in Uganda on behalf of heavily oppressed gays and lesbians, were disinvited by a Dublin-born cardinal from a women’s meeting supposed to be held in the Vatican. Here is ‘clericalism’ again, and the refusal of dialogue. Pope Francis has put compassion center stage in his reading of the Gospel. In fact, that is perhaps the central feature of the character of Jesus, his quick response to those in distress and his speed in coming to their assistance, as a healer. Is that the trait we think of when we think of him? A regular orderly life, a bit of prayer, an offering of our work for the glory of God, is not that our Christian ideal? But the Gospel makes other demands: generosity, compassion, self-giving, sacrifice. We easily miss our neighbor’s distress, though it is all around us if we care to look for it. We choose the street where we will not meet someone asking us for money, stepping to the other side. There is a striking line in that cruel and almost unbearable play, King Lear: ‘Expose yourself to feel what wretches feel.’ When Pope Francis talks of accompaniment and dialogue he is calling us to that kind of compassionate tenderness. His heart is in the right place, and he has done quite a lot to disentangle the Gospel from the bureaucratic knots that threaten to stifle it. He has called on the whole Church to join him in this, through the synodal process, so as to become a welcoming, empathetic church, shaking off hypocrisy. In striking gospel joy and God’s unbounded love he encourages a more progressive and positive vision of human nature and its unexplored potential. 3. Mary McAleese: The First Step on a Damascene Road? The Declaration Fiducia supplicans (FS) promulgated by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith with Papal approval on 23 December 2023 has provoked controversy and an unusual number of post-publication curial and papal explanations about its content. For all that its subject matter deals with access of Catholics in irregular unions to simple, spontaneous, informal blessings, in fact its import for the universal Church is far from simple. It deals with an issue that had been discreetly nudging some European dioceses, notably German, Austrian, Swiss, and Flemish, towards a new culture of inclusion of gay Catholics which countenanced priestly blessings for gay couples who were civilly married as jurisdiction after jurisdiction in the West made provision for same-sex marriage and traditional hostile attitudes to homosexuality gave way to acceptance, dismantling of oppressive laws, and the assertion of equal rights. In the global south the opposite was happening as resistance to gay rights provoked tighter laws against homosexuality (sometimes with the encouragement of Catholic bishops). The issue flared when the German Catholic Church’s Synodal Way proposed to permit church blessings for Catholic gay civilly married couples. Their plan was decisively dashed when in February 2021 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published, with papal approval, its Responsum to ‘a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex.’ It concluded that ‘the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.’ The reasons advanced included that they would constitute ‘a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing’; homosexual unions are in no way ‘similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family’; such relationships are not ‘objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace’: God ‘does not and cannot bless sin.’ If the responsum was designed to end all debate on the subject it had the opposite effect. Its judgmental language chimed badly with what had been widely perceived as a more tolerant attitude in papal comments to reporters on a flight back from Brazil after World Youth Day, 29 July 2013: ‘If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?’ However often overlooked was the fact that he had prefaced his remarks by restating church teaching that views homosexual acts as sinful. Indeed more recently he had echoed Pope Benedict’s opposition to admitting homosexual men to the priesthood when in a private session, he advised the Italian Bishops’ Conference on the subject of admitting gay men to seminaries to train for the priesthood saying: ‘If in doubt, better not let them enter.’ There can be little doubt but that in the clamor of disappointment that greeted the Responsum ad dubium, Pope Francis came under enormous pressure to bring some kind of reconciling clarity to his views particularly as the reports from Synodal discussions at diocesan level, by then were indicating strong support for reform of church teaching on homosexuality among other things. Shortly before the October 2023 Synod of Bishops met, a small group of conservative cardinals pushed Pope Francis for that clarity. He did not give the answer they wanted. Instead according to FS the possibility was opened up of revisiting the Responsum ad dubium and ‘offering new clarifications’ ‘in light of Pope Francis’ fatherly and pastoral approach.’ The Declaration was presented as an explanatory update on the Responsum ad dubium rather than what it actually was, a contradiction which still leaves a lot of doubt about where the Pope is steering the bigger debate on magisterial teaching on homosexuality. At one level the Declaration can be seen as little more than a limited concession to gay Catholic couples which permits a priest, if asked, to give informal ’short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualized) of couples in irregular situations (but not of their unions).’ The Declaration ‘remains firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church about marriage, not allowing any type of liturgical rite or blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion.’ To avoid confusion, the blessing must be free of all ‘wedding’ context including ‘any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding’ (FS, 31). The Declaration suggests that ‘such a blessing may instead find its place in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage’ (FS, 40). At this level the Declaration slaps down the more liberal, advanced dioceses which had moved towards formal liturgical blessings for gay couples, while also slapping down the narrow view of blessings and even narrower view of God’s grace presented in the Responsum ad dubium which offered precisely nothing to gay Catholics. I remember my own reaction to the Responsum and in particular the realization that it had been published with the full acquiescence of Pope Francis. As the sister, mother, and mother-in-law of three deeply Christian gay men I was horrified to the point of despair, enough to send a scathing letter to Pope Francis in which I quoted (in my own translation) the final stanza from the famous Irish love poem ‘Dónal Óg’: You took my North, you took my South, You took my East, You took my West, You took the sun from me and you took the moon And I do believe you even took my God from me. Nowhere in that disheartening document could I see Christ, nowhere could I see God’s love, and worse still nowhere could I see a place to be part of a loving God’s complex family where grace flowed freely. I imagine I was not alone. I imagine Pope Francis was the recipient of a lot of letters from the faithful who felt they had reached the end of the road of faith in the Church and faith in him as its leader. The Declaration when it came was very much an act of putting a finger in that disintegrating ecclesial dyke. If that is all it is it will not be enough. At another level, the most critical level, the Declaration has to be potentially the first step on a Damascene road to the ‘fundamental revision’ of Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality called for by Cardinal Hollerich of Luxembourg, then President of the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union (from 2018 to 2023) and currently Relator General of the Synod on Synodality. He believes ‘that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer true’ and that ‘we are thinking ahead in terms of doctrine. The way the pope has expressed himself in the past can lead to a change in doctrine.’ Cardinal Hollerich fortunately is not a lone voice, though he has many episcopal and other opponents within the Church. Accompanying each other, listening to one another, standing in the shoes of the other, and then starting anew in dialogue and consultation, we may outgrow frozen teachings on LGBT questions, as we previously overcame horrendous historic teachings which favored slavery, sexism, sectarianism, all with countless victims. Fiducia supplicans may seem to offer extremely little from Mother Church to her LGBT children, yet it could signal the beginning of an era of discussion, learning, and frank sharing, melting long centuries of hypocrisy.
by Colm Holmes 24 Mar, 2024
Excellent documentary on BBC2
by Colm Holmes & Ursula Halligan 24 Mar, 2024
How can we imagine the life of the Church in Ireland where people are co-responsible for the Church’s mission in different ways?
More posts
Share by: