| |
Mgr. John Arnold, Archbishop’s
House, Ambrosden Avenue, London SW1P 1QJ
Dear Mgr. Arnold,
‘Green Paper’: Response and
Analysis
I write as Chairman of the Parish Council of Holy Cross, Much
Hadham. We recently had a meeting of the Council and other
interested members of the parish to discuss a response to
the Green Paper. This letter provides a synopsis of the main
points which were agreed.
1. We welcome the initiative which the Green Paper represents,
and have already started thinking about the ways in which
our community can:
• Develop our outreach to Catholics in the area - particularly
young parents and children
• Take over some of the current activities of our priest,
for example taking communion to the sick
• Strengthen the parish administration to further reduce
the burden on our priest.
• Develop our links to neighbouring parishes and find
more shared projects.
• Find more ways to share resources, community activities
and spiritual resources in the wider ecumenical community
(in the context of Holy Cross, collaborating with our Anglican
brethren at St, Andrews is an obvious option but we believe
that more traditionally organised Catholic parishes should
not overlook the potential of such co-operation)
2. Developing more initiatives in this vein
will help us to continue to function as a community with less
input from the priest, and enable him to concentrate more
on essential liturgical functions, pastoral cases which require
his special skills, and on guiding the overall spiritual direction
of the community.
3. We recognise that developing this approach
demands a change in culture in the whole community –
amongst the laity, the clergy, and diocesan administration.
• The lay community must take more ownership of an increasing
number of activities which it is proper for them to undertake.
This is a learning process, which we can start now.
• The clergy need to recognise that the laity will only
take ownership of activities if they are given the authority
to do so. This does not mean that the priest has to give up
all control – clearly he needs to intervene if things
are going badly wrong, but it does mean that he stands back
from day to day issues.
4. We believe that this represents a significant
departure from established practice for most priests, and
to achieve it requires a managed programme of change, which
will include:
• Formal discussion within the parish between priest
and people about who does what, and the boundaries of empowerment.
The format will vary from parish to parish, but a diocesan
“template” would clearly be helpful.
• A programme of discussion, workshops and written material
to support priests in participating in the change of culture.
• Changes to the formation programme offered in seminaries
to support modern interpersonal and management skills.
5. Clearly the diocese has a leading role
to play in implementing all this change – particularly
in;
• Providing resources to assist parishes in developing
a new model
• Assisting the clergy in what may, for some, be an
uncomfortable change process
• Recognising that as the relationship between the parish
community and its priest as leader matures, there needs to
be sensitivity in the appointments process. Each parish will
have its own established way of working, and appointing a
new priest will involve more careful matching of the leadership
style of the candidate and the needs of the parish.
6. In the wider context, the impending shortage
of priests raises a number of questions in the minds of many
people in the church.
• A number of married priests are providing excellent
service to the community, enriched by their experience of
family life. We understand and value the charism of celibacy
and the spiritual depth it brings, but cannot understand why
other potential and current sources of married clergy are
not being tapped.
• We also feel that there is room to develop the options
in ministry available to women. The role of Martha is understood
and respected, but Mary seems to be denied any way of developing
the “better part”.
7. We feel that none of the above suggestions affects the
role of the bishops in preaching and preserving the Word of
God. However, we strongly believe that all sections of the
Church in Westminster need to adapt their approach to more
effectively carry out our common mission to build the Kingdom
in the context of the particular challenges we face, and the
culture and traditions of our local communities.
Yours sincerely, |
|
