Catholic View

The Duck Test shows St. Mary's Parish, South Brisbane - Catholic and Alive

St Mary’s, South Brisbane is certainly a Catholic parish and in communion with the Catholic church.

Masses celebrated at St Mary’s are real Catholic masses.

Baptisms at St Mary’s are true baptisms.

All you have to do is the duck test. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck.

Go to Mass there any Sunday and you find the church full of Catholics who have gone there precisely to celebrate Sunday Mass. They and all the locals of South Brisbane know it is a Catholic church and it is Sunday Mass.

Go to a baptism there and you find the family with their baby, their godparents and friends all gathered round. What are they there for? A baptism. So, a baptism it is. Anyone who quibbles that saying the wrong words makes the sacrament invalid are not applying the duck test. Invalid means it was not a real baptism. I once baptised inadvertently saying “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Was it invalid – i.e. not a real baptism? Anyone present will tell you it was a baptism. That is why they came and that is what they celebrated.

Does the celebration style matter? Do the ritual words and actions matter? Of course they do; but they do not make or break the reality of the celebration. They are a matter of taste. And that is precisely why St Mary’s is important. For those people St Mary’s style suits their taste while it puts others off; just as reverting to the Tridentine mass suits the taste of some and puts others off.

Archbishop Bathersby is well known to be a genuinely pastoral bishop. And he is being pressured from the current reactionary and power obsessed Roman administration – because people turned off by St Mary’s style have dobbed them in – to Rome.

Archbishop Bathersby has other parishes where the sacramental ministry is bad but nobody is dobbing them in. These parishes are dismal and lifeless while South Brisbane is alive.

To condemn this matter of style under a rubric of non-negotiable doctrine is to misread the discourse, misunderstand how sacramentality works and to act not as a bully but as a tyrant.

To say they are outside the Church’s communion is dangerous hubris.

The best solution is to take as long as it takes to organize a win-win solution.

Obama – Gen X to the Rescue.

Barack Obama is elected USA President – the first Gen Xer to move to world leadership. Yes, born in 1961, he belongs to Generation X.

The times are hazardous. The USA is staggering as world leader. It has frightening national debt, enormous national deficits, is caught up in an intractable Middle East, two very uncertain and expensive wars and, now, a finance crisis the world has not seen since the Great Depression. And this is all happening in a society which has been divided by culture wars and, consequently, driven more by fear than by hope – a situation which has been promoted and exploited by political leaders to their own advantage.

Yet the new Gen X President speaks of hope rather than fear and of unity rather than sectarian division. Is there any reason to trust him?

In 1991 Neil Howe and William Strauss published “Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069”. Supported by detailed analysis they proposed that the attitudes and values of historical generations followed a four generation cyclical pattern – Civic, Adaptive, Visionary, Reactive:

Generation Type	Dominance	Characteristic	Example
Civic	Dominant	Works together to defeat a crisis and reconstructs a new world order.	World War II (GI) Gen. b. 1901-1924
Adaptive	Recessive	Organizes the new order resulting from Civics’ success.	Silent Generation. b. 1925 -1942
Visionary	Dominant	Rejects established value system forcing new ideas and structures.	Baby Boomer Gen. b. 1943-1960
Reactive	Recessive	Disempowered – they do their own thing but become very self-reliant. They make great leaders in mid life.	Lost Generation b. 1883-1900. Generation X b. 1961-1981

The 20^th century story illustrates the theory.

The WWII generation had come of age in the 1920s and 30s. As young adults they bore the brunt of the depression and were the main group enlisted for WWII. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first President to lead the response to the crisis after he won the 1932 election. The depression had already begun. In his second term he took the USA into World War II. The world was in chaos and would stay that way till after his death in 1945. Eisenhower would lead the allied victory in Europe and, as President from 1952, would lead the reconstruction. Harry Truman would end the Pacific War with his new atomic bomb. The GIs would return triumphant from the war and be the foot soldiers of the post war reconstruction miracle. Europe was rebuilt and the enemy nations of Germany and Japan were put back on their feet with massive USA help.

Those leaders belonged to the Lost Generation. (Roosevelt was on the cusp.) Like Generation X, they were a reactive generation. The generational combination worked out brilliantly – willing, self-sacrificing civic minded young adults with hard nosed, practical leaders in their mid-life period.

The Silent Generation – an adaptive generation - followed the WWIIs and worked strongly in the back room fine tuning the organizational and regulatory structures that oiled the economic and administrative machine. The WWIIs and the Silents ended up socially and financially enhanced by their efforts.

The Baby Boomers floated easily into a world of plenty. Great education possibilities. Great job opportunities in a booming economic world. Invincible - supermen – superwomen – masters of the universe. However as a visionary generation, they found the old values and world order tedious. They confidently questioned them and re-wrote the book. They introduced a more liberal, self-centred value system. They took over the business world, the organs of opinion, the government. And, once in the box seat, they were reluctant to move on. Read Mark Davis’s “Gangland”.

While the Baby Boomers were less strictly brought up than their Silent predecessors, the Gen Xs – a reactive generation - were loosely brought up. They suffered more heavily than their predecessors from family breakup and poorer nuclear family care. (Look at Barack Obama’s family experience.) The Boomers siphoned off most of the wealth, spent fairly freely and left economic deficits for Gen X to pay off. Compared to the Boomers, the Gen Xs were a recessive and reactive generation. They distanced themselves from public affairs, were reluctant to join political parties, community organizations, churches, unions even football and social clubs. They were heavily influenced by peer values and networked with their own.

Looser supervision made them early risk takers. But their early wounds made them street smart. They learnt that the world could be a dangerous place and that you had to look out for yourself and make your own way. They came of age during the 80s and 90s and their leading edge is now approaching 50 years of age. As the Baby Boomers move into retirement it is their turn to take the leadership the Boomers have been reluctant to pass on.

As they take leadership, the world has become once again a much more uncertain place with a scenario amazingly similar to that of the 30s. Yet there are signs that they are getting ready to tackle and overcome the challenge.

The US election drew our attention to another civic generation, the Millennials, who are showing the get up and go, let’s-all-work-together spirit that characterises a civic generation. They were the ones who changed the expectation that the younger generation was disengaged. They not only voted – they organised to get others to vote. And now they have a Gen Xer as president. He is of that reactive generation like the Lost Generation of Eisenhower and Truman - a generation that rises to the leadership challenge when needed.

The situation is dire. But the reason to look forward to its successful solution is in the generational stars. With the Millennials ready for action and a brilliant Gen Xer to lead them there is every reason to hope.

Whether Rudd and Swann in Australia - being baby-boomers - will lead Australia well is questionable.   But at least the nation had an elderly PM from the Silent Generation (John Howard) and capable Treasurer (Peter Costello) that left Australia in the best financial and economic position of any nation in the OECD, after 11 years in power.  So it matters less than the USA which is in its worst mess since the Great Depression almost 70 years ago, courtesy of a baby-boomer President that will probably go down in history as the USA’s worst in a century, or more.   Ironically, the USA’s previous President, Bill Clinton, was also a baby-boomer, but managed to deliver surplus Budgets for most of his 8-year term.  So generalisations are just that.

New Evangelisation in the 21st Century - Removing the Roadblocks

New Evangelisation in the 21st Century: Removing the Roadblocks

ISBN 9781920721831 Author Eric Hodgens,

This title has recently been published by John Garratt.

 

As the end of the 20th century approached, Pope John Paul II confided that he felt God was calling him to lead the Church into the new millennium. To prepare for this he issued a new Apostolic Letter, Novo Millennio Ineunte, calling for a New Evangelisation. This term has become a major sound bite in Catholic PR and has been taken up round the globe by dioceses and religious movements.

In this essay Eric Hodgens identifies the problem that triggered this call, examines how John Paul II and Benedict XVI have responded to that problem, views it in the light of history and current sociology, identifies some new relevant issues and suggests alternative approaches to a New Evangelisation. His basic thesis is that until the Church faces up to issues raised by liberal democracy, biblical literacy, scientific knowledge and issues of sexuality, it will not overcome the roadblocks to effective evangelisation in the 21st century.

Eric Hodgens was ordained a priest in the Melbourne archdiocese in 1960. After his seminary studies he completed a BA majoring in Psychology and Biblical Literature and Antiquities. He subsequently completed a master’s thesis in the Criminology Department of Melbourne University. He has held a number of key diocesan positions in pastoral planning, the continuing education of priests and the priests’ remuneration and retirement funds. The latter called for extensive demographic research to project the future retirement requirements of priests. He was the founding parish priest of Holy Saviour Parish, Glen Waverley North and recently retired after 14 years as parish priest of St Bede’s Parish, North Balwyn

 

Order from John Garratt Publishing on 1 300 650 878

Intriguing Catholic Education Office Appointment

Eric Hodgens

23 September 2008.

Nancy Bicchieri, a lawyer, was appointed Deputy Director of the Melbourne Catholic Education Office in August 2008 and takes up her appointment at the end of September.

Many had been hoping that the new Deputy would be a person of rich experience in education and Catholic education in particular. Ms Bicchieri is neither.

Many had been hoping that the new Deputy would have diplomatic skills and experience to facilitate dealings with governments.

This appointment is critical because of the re-structuring of the CEO leadership which took place during 2006. An article entitled “Melbourne ’s Catholic Education Office Leadership Transformation”, published in November 2006 and available on this site, outlines this re-structuring. Several key persons in the CEO leadership team had been eliminated or demoted. The Director’s position was vacant. Stephen Elder had been appointed Acting Director out of the blue bypassing more qualified and experienced senior staff.

Stephen Elder’s appointment as Acting Director alarmed many priests, principals, teachers and CEO administrators. He  has little education qualification or teaching experience and very little Catholic education experience. He also lacks accreditation to teach in Catholic schools and the separate accreditation to teach Religious Education in Catholic schools. He has no theological training or qualification. He has not demonstrated an understanding of church relationships or church policy.

To complicate matters Stephen Elder is identified with the Liberal Party. He held a Liberal seat in the Victorian parliament during the Jeff Kennett administration. He got a Liberal staff job with David Kemp after he lost his seat in the election that brought Steve Bracks to power. The Director’s task includes consulting with State and Federal governments on funding. Clearly, being aligned with one party complicates this task.

 Concern about the possibility of his being appointed Director was expressed at a CEO consultation day with the priests who are the proprietors of Catholic primary schools. Archbishop Hart assured the priests at a meeting of his Priest’s Council that the search for the next Director would be an open one.

Stephen Elder, nonetheless, was appointed Director by Archbishop Hart on 20 December 2006 – without any public advertisement or selection process. The eve of Christmas timing, after the schools had broken up for the summer holidays, cloaked the widespread consternation which the appointment caused.

The period since Mr. Elder’s appointment has been notable for lack of vision and leadership. This is hardly surprising in the light of his lack of qualifications listed above.

The Director’s office is an ivory tower. Consultation is minimal. Consultation with governments has been confrontational and political rather than diplomatic. This has not been helped by the Liberal leanings of Archbishop Hart and Cardinal Pell.

There was an expectation that the impasse would be obvious to the leadership of both the CEO and the Archdiocese of Melbourne. The solution would be the appointment of a Deputy who would be thoroughly familiar with Catholic education in Melbourne and be a politically neutral diplomat who could take on the task of contact with governments.

The appointment of a lawyer to the position of Deputy goes counter to those hopes. The rationale being spread around is that the leadership team needs a lawyer because of recent trends in educational administration. Very strange when legal consultants abound. What it really needs is qualification, competence and experience in Catholic Education - at the top.

Let’s hope that Ms Bicchieri is a very good listener to a demoralized CEO administration and a very fast learner of diplomatic skills for dealing both with staff, politicians and the various levels of church authorities.  

Melbourne’s Catholic Education Office Leadership Transformation

16 November 2006

The Melbourne Catholic Education Office makeover is now almost complete. The leadership team has been disbanded.

Susan Pascoe, the former Director of Catholic Education, has left Catholic Education after being sidelined to the job of Chief Executive of the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria (CECV).

Fr. Brendan Reed, a former Deputy Director, is now totally out of Catholic Education and his job dissolved. An unclear advisory role was offered in its place. He saw this as unmanageable and offered a resignation which was immediately accepted. This leaves the CEO priestless for the first time in its history.

Vincent McPhee, the other Deputy Director, has had his position dissolved and been assigned the lesser position of Assistant Director.

The top position now rests with Stephen Elder who catapulted to prominence when Susan Pascoe was sidelined. His position is currently Acting Director of Catholic Education while the process of selecting a new Director moves on. Since he was an applicant for this position back in 2002 when Susan Pascoe was appointed, and is clearly favoured over more experienced CEO staff, he is in the box seat for selection this time round.

The two deputy directors were told of their demise mid September. But no official announcement was made. Since then the rumour mill raged for six weeks.  At the end of October a fax arrived clarifying some facts but raising other questions. Poor communication and absence of transparency has characterised this whole Catholic Education saga since it began with the sacking of the Victorian Catholic School Association at the end of December 2005.

Catholic bishops have been brought up in a culture that insists that they are boss and do not have to answer to anyone. Many bishops resent being questioned and are reluctant to have open discussion. They rely on personally chosen compliant advisors. They have not learned that the world at large now expects open debate, transparency and accountability.

The result is a cultural standoff.

The bishop whose deliberation and decision is questioned is angry and affronted.  Those affected by his decision feel angry and abused. Look at the never-ending mess created by the USA and Irish bishops over their mishandling of clergy paedophilia.

This scenario has characterised the realignment of the CEO leadership.

The Melbourne Catholic Education system is the fourth largest in the country after the NSW, Victorian and Queensland State systems. To administer such a large outfit the leadership must be highly professional and experienced in the areas of educational theory, personnel management and educational administration. They also must be known and at home in the higher echelons of Catholic, state and private educational networks.

Change was inevitable with the departure in 2003 of Mgr. Tom Doyle and the retirement of Peter  Annett. Susan Pascoe was an excellent successor with Brendan Reed and Vin McPhee being groomed for succession.

So, three key educational leaders have been neutralized by diocesan authorities without any consultation in the halls of Catholic Education administration. And now the leadership lacks expertise and experience in key areas including, ironically, the one which receives most lip service from the hierarchy – religious education.

The diocesan kitchen cabinet consists of key personnel from the offices of the Archbishop, the Vicar General and the Diocesan Finance Office. Nobody in those offices is expert on education, religious education or educational administration. Yet, this is where the reshuffle was organized.

The new Acting Director, trained as a primary teacher at the Victorian University of Technology, soon moved into politics. His contact with educational administration was political. He was Jeff Kennett’s Parliamentary Secretary for Education during the controversial three years following the 1996 Victorian elections. Having lost his seat in the 1999 elections he was given a Liberal Party job in Canberra under David Kemp - Minister for Education in the Howard government. In 2001 Mgr. Doyle gave him a position in the Melbourne CEO.

Mgr. Tom Doyle, during his long term of leadership, was acknowledged for his ability to work cooperatively with all sides of politics. This political non-alignment has been a major positive aspect of the work of the CEO.

The Catholic Education system differs from most catholic organizations. It is responsible to the local church in the person of the bishop. It is also responsible to the governments which provide the bulk of its funding. This gives it a separate financial responsibility and corresponding financial independence which seems to have been a red rag to the episcopal bull and the Diocesan Finance Office.

The long delayed fax to Parish Priests, Leaders of Religious Congregations and School Principals arrived after office hours on Friday 27 October. It quoted a review of the Catholic Education Office of Melbourne which had been done after the separation of the roles of Executive Officer of the CECV and the Director of Catholic Education. There were no details of who commissioned or conducted the review or its terms of reference. Stephen Elder signed the fax although, as Acting Director, he had previously indicated that his role was more that of caretaker.

So, who took the decisions?

The upshot is that we have lost a most experienced Catholic Education administrator, Susan Pascoe, and our most trained and experienced religious education expert, Brendan Reed. There is nobody to match them in those areas in the CEO.

The Catholic Education Office of Melbourne administers the fourth largest educational system in Australia. Historically it has led the way in vision, planning, effective relations with governments and transparency of administration. In less than a year diocesan bad management, non-consultative planning, lack of communications and half-truth publicity have come together to leave a Catholic Education Office which has lost its key visionaries and is confused and demoralised.

We are told that the review recommended a more flatly structured Executive Team. What it has given us is a flattened department. And a lot are angry at that.

The Millennial Jubilee:  From Ideology to Faith – From Fear to Freedom.

Eric Hodgens.                                                                                            8 June 1999

Luke – the Jubilee Evangelist:  Set the oppressed free.

Luke is the jubilee evangelist.  The first statement he puts on Jesus’s lips affirms Jesus as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s jubilee prophecy.  He is to “let the oppressed go free”.  A constant Lukan theme will be “Do not be afraid.”  Freedom from fear and oppression is a central aspect of salvation for Luke.

This speaks to me of a jubilee that is fitting for the turn of the 21^st century.  In contrast to Luke, sin and fear have been so central to the proclamation of Christianity for centuries.  Have a look at Delumeau’s book “Sin and Fear.”[1] It has been heavily woven into the tapestry of a Catholic ideology – an ideology that is crumbling.  We are losing some aspects of the life of the church that a strong ideology supports.  But we have already begun a new experience of faith that brings the freedom of the Gospel, releases the bonds of fear and can bring us into a new period of joy especially for those involved in faith education.

Nevertheless, for those who love the Church and its Good News there are additional fears and anxieties today.  The Church appears to be falling apart.  It is certainly losing numbers.  Most of us know people who have given it up. Many of us have had the same temptation either because of disillusionment or demoralization as we struggle against the tide.  I say all is well – on balance.  There are massive changes afoot – and many more to come.  Not all of this is good – but on balance it is good – if not very good.  Here is my reasoning for that assertion.

The 60’s Family:

I went to the seminary in 1953, just three years after the last jubilee year.  I have been a priest for the best part of 40 years. For the whole of the years between these two jubilees my life has been intensely associated with the Church. As a new associate pastor you tend to learn from the Parish Priest on the job.  As early as 1961 I was discussing a parish family with my Parish Priest.  There were several children – all baby boomers and being brought up very strictly.  The PP said, “Oh, they will all give the church the flick.” “Really?” I said, “ Why?” He replied, “They are Catholics like Collingwood Supporters, one-eyed and tribal.  Those kids are willful.  They don’t like the tribe.  They will choose another.”

A couple of years ago, that’s 35 years later, I met those parents.  “None of our children are still practising”, they said, but added, “They’ll be back.”  I doubt it. 

Four Points Spotted:

That priest was very perceptive.  He had spotted:

·         The looming loss of the younger generations.

·         The generational difference of the Baby Boomers.

·         The cultural aspect of being a Catholic – “tribal”.

·         The ideological aspect of being a Catholic – “like Collingwood supporters – one-eyed”

We lost them.

We did lose a lot of them.  Let’s take a couple of pointers.

Mass Attendance.

Surveys taken in the post-war years into the 1950’s show 60% of Australian Catholics attending Mass regularly.  Today it is around 18% and dropping relentlessly.  The main reason is that the older generations are dying off.  The Baby Boomers are not so regular.  The Generation X’s are virtually absent.  And now something even more insidious.  We are losing a proportion of the parents of these two generations.  The disillusionment is spreading.

Dramatic Drop in Vocations and Ordinations to the Priesthood.

These have dropped dramatically.  And it all started back round World War II.  A steady proportion of the World War I and WW II generations went to the seminary.  Three quarters of them stayed to ordination.  The Silent Generation joined up after WWII, but the retention rate dropped. This was also the group which started the exodus from the priesthood after ordination.  A smaller proportion of Baby Boomers joined up.  The retention rate dropped further.  Post-ordination departures increased.  And Generation X has shown virtually no interest at all.

The looming absence of priests is the most far reaching fact facing the Church in the English speaking world and Europe today.  It is a major indicator of the sea change that the Church is going through.

Explanation?

What is the explanation?  We can use the other three hooks which that priest of 40 years ago gave us in his pithy observation.

The Generational Differences.

If we look at the century which is coming to an end we see that five generations have come of age (i.e. entered the twenties).  This is all out of “Generations” by William Strauss and Neil Howe.[2]

Table 1:  The Generations of the 20th Century
Title	Dominant/ Recessive	Generation Type	Birth Years	Came of Age
Lost Generation	Recessive	Reactive	1883-1900	1903-1920 World War I.
World War II	Dominant	Civic	1901-1924	1921-1944 Depression and World War II.
Silent	Recessive	Adaptive	1925-1942	1945-1962 Post-war Reconstruction.
Baby Boomer	Dominant	Idealist	1943-1960	1963-1980 The Free Sixties.
Generation X	Recessive	Reactive	1961-1981	1981-2001

Two World Wars and a serious depression dominated the first half of the century.  The Lost Generation was the cannon fodder of World War I.  They suffered it largely in silent grief.  They became the emblem of the Little Aussie Battler, but their performance under awful, tragic suffering paved the way for the World War II generation to deal with the depression and the war with energy, resolve and success.  After World War II this generation rolled up their sleeves and led the post-war reconstruction with the Silent generation keeping its head down but making sure that the black and white drive of the WW II’s was adapted and softened and transformed into a system that worked.  The Silent Generation see themselves today as the Lucky Generation.[3]  These two generations also settled down, had large families and got on with the job of re-building a good, healthy society.  And they got the shock of their lives when their offspring, the Baby Boomers, came along, kicking and screaming and ready to teach the rest of the world what the real issues were.

The New Baby Boomer Vision.

The Baby Boomers are a visionary generation and an assertive, dominant generation. They broke the mould of standards, historical continuity and community service.  No ideological or cultural presumptions could constrain them.  All power groups had to prove themselves.  Not for them the reverent submission to civic or religious authorities simply on the basis of convention or presumption.  Many remained strongly affiliated with the church, but by their own choice and on their own terms.  The rest started the exodus.

They reveled in starting change.  But now they think it has gone too far and they are powerless to stop it.  They see themselves as the stressed generation.[4]  They have spent too much and not saved.  Their Generation X offspring run rings around them in a disengaged, almost patronizing way.  But, once the cat is out of the bag it is hard to put it back.

Generation X.

Generation X’s are a recessive and reactive generation.  I call them the Angoras.  Cute, decorative, every household should have one.  But, they live their own lives.  They are the first generation this century that faces an economic future worse than the generation before them.  They have experienced social instability, broken families, unemployment, homelessness such as has not been seen since the Lost Generation which came of age at the very start of the century.  They have had to look after themselves.  They do not trust institutions - political, social or religious.  They are not interested in the news or what other generations think or feel.  They stick together.  They are the most peer group oriented generation this century.

They are nomadic and they network informally.  The dream of Dick Whittington with his pack on his back, baseball cap on his head and a mobile phone on his belt has been fine tuned to perfection by the Angoras.  Furthermore, the Angoras took over the focus on self of the Baby Boomers and turned it into an art form.  If it suits, it is good – for as long as it suits.  Then, “I can do without this.  I’m out of here!”  A click on the mobile and the network is engaged, the pack on the back is replenished and off they go.  Hugh Mackay calls them the Options Generation.[5]  And after the way they have been treated as a generation I don’t blame them one bit.

I respect them enormously.  They are the fourth generation since the Lost Generation.  They intuitively know that they will have to carry the can and they will rise to the expectations.  Their Lost Generation counterparts were the ones who led that WW II group who came of age during the depression and WW II.  Look at Harry Truman, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower and you will see what they will be like when they are faced with fixing the mess.

But, their distrust and disengagement is not very conducive to docile membership of an authoritarian institution led by very, very old and strange priests and giving the impression that its primary objective is to disapprove of everything they stand for.

The Angoras are all in their 20’s and 30’s now.  We have lost them to the Church and I do not think they will be back.  My priest back in 1960 may not have foreseen all this in detail, but he did spot the willfulness of the Baby Boomers, alerting us to the importance of the attitudes of cohort generations.

The Historico/Cultural Aspect of Being a Catholic.

To be born a Catholic in the first half of this century was to be born into a sub-culture as well as a faith system.  Sectarianism and poverty raised boundaries that provided protection from the non-Catholic enemy and fortress strength to those sheltering inside.

Most of that sectarianism has gone now

Catholics moved from being largely poor laborers and tradesmen to the middle class status of the professions, upper public service and business management with concomitant increase in wealth. Massive efforts to provide formal education resulted in this move.  Greater wealth and status brought greater freedom.

Once again my PP had spotted this factor.  He used the term “tribal”.  And the tribe was breaking up.

The Ideological Aspect of Catholic Life.

My Parish Priest spotted another key factor – the main point of this paper.  Catholic life was very ideological for the first half of this century.  When he said that those parishioners were Catholics like Collingwood supporters – “one-eyed”, he meant that they were what I would call ideological Catholics.  The team they barracked for was “The Catholics”.  They were strong supporters of Catholicism – an ideology.

It is my thesis that, in the main, the loss of the younger generations was due to their rejection of ideological Catholicism rather than the central Catholic Christian message.

So, it is important for me to show you what I mean by ideology.  It is hard to define.  The best way to do it is to use ostensive definitions.  And where better to start than by my telling of my own tale?

My Background.

I grew up in a strong, though not rigid, Catholic family.  We never missed Sunday Mass and were amazed to find that some kids at school did.  It was a mortal sin to miss Mass.  It was easy enough to commit a mortal sin and if you died in that state you went to hell.

As a teenager I was taught and believed that the most important thing was to save your soul and get to heaven.  That was possible because of Jesus’s atoning death.  You got his grace through the sacraments which were dispensed through the Church.  God continued his direction of us all through the church with its teaching and ruling authority.  The teaching was contained in the catechism which we learnt by heart.

The moral rules were central to my life.  For a few years I was scrupulous and anxiously went to confession very often.

Jesus’ work of saving souls was done through the priesthood.  This was the greatest of all possible vocations.  That is the reason I applied to go to the seminary and become a priest. We were “Other Christs” by ordination.  Noblesse oblige meant that we had very serious obligations.  But these were offset by being set apart as sacral leaders of the church which was the only path to salvation.  It also brought clerical status, power and prestige.  If you don’t believe that, I will quote my mother who could annoy the very devil out of my four siblings by saying to them, “Eric is the only one who has brought any prestige to this family.”

All were called to holiness, the priest to greater holiness.  This was achieved mainly by prayer and keeping God’s law.  And God’s law was clearly listed in the mortal and venial sins we knew by heart.

The church of the 50’s was a church firmly and effectively contained by:

·         law;

·         doctrine;

·         procedures and protocols (praxis).

It was controlled by:

·         clergy and hierarchy.  The laity were to follow clerical instructions.

In other words it was legalistic, doctrinaire, clerical and hierarchical – using those terms in a descriptive, neutral sense.

The whole system was integrated, clear, closed and unchanging.  And it was a package – all or nothing.

The Real Education of Young Eric.

What were some of the factors that led to a turnaround in understanding of God, Jesus, the Church and faith itself?

Two years before my ordination John XXIII was elected pope.  Vatican II was called.  The council started two years after I was ordained.  Let me list some key transforming moments.

The Opening Up of the Scriptures.

By the early 60’s the huge developments of understanding of the scriptures that had been going on all this century started to filter down to the non-academic world.  I caught the start of that wave and have kept up the study ever since. My knowledge and love of the scriptures, especially the New Testament, have had three effects:

·         They have become both the basis of my faith and my main source of insight into the real core of Christian belief.

·         They have taught me that faith is primarily an attempt to take the experience of life – mine and my tribe’s – no matter how painful and chaotic, and see it as meaningful, valuable and purposeful.

·         It has also convinced me that the best way of communicating faith is by telling stories and, therefore, using imagery.  The story is an open statement.  The doctrinal definition is a closed statement.  Both have their place, but the story engages the hearer and resonates with the hearer’s own experience. 

The Changes of the 60’s

·         The abolition of Friday abstinence. 
Friday abstinence had been what Mary Douglas, the great English sociologist, calls a “concentrated symbol” of being a Catholic.[6] This change, though simple enough now, marked a break in the Catholic package.  I believe this had much more impact than we give it credit.

·         The dramatic drop in confession during the mid 60’s.
It is hard to overestimate the significance of the demise of confession.  It started a serious decline in the mid sixties.  During the five years after Humane Vitae it virtually ceased to be part of the sacramental life of western Catholics. Two big shifts were taking place. Many started to re-evaluate and prioritize their morality and started to think that our previous priorities had been wrong.  Secondly, many started to see that morality is not the central focus of the Christian message.

·         The reformation of the liturgy in 1963, in particular the introduction of English in the liturgy.

·         The 1968 birth control encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.
We all knew that Paul VI’s commission had stated that there was no obstacle to softening the prohibition on contraception.  We knew that the matter had been referred on again to a commission of curial cardinals and feared the worst.  In fact, it was the cardinals who feared the worst and advised the pope that his authority would be undermined if he changed his stance.  Paul VI rejected his broader commission’s advice and re-asserted that contraception was intrinsically wrong.  Overnight the church was split, with the side effect that the papacy, which had been all powerful in the Church this century, was deauthorized.  A majority of Catholics and half the clergy dissented at that instant, and the proportion of dissenters has increased ever since.  The biggest single credibility gap between official Vatican policy and the opinions of the lower clergy and laity is in the area of sexuality.  Contraception, extra-marital sex and homosexual sex are totally condemned by the Vatican while most lower clergy and laity do not agree.

Very important elements of the Catholic package were going:  the rigid morality, the inflation and distortion of morality, and, above all, the distortion of making morality the centrepiece of Christianity and the image of God as judge the dominant image.

The ideology was breaking down – massively.  Vatican II gave it an enormous boost.  Not universally, of course, but massively.

From Ideology to Faith.

As a result of all these influences the secure cleric in the contained institution no longer exists.  How can I describe the change?  There are many models one could use, but here I will describe it as a move from ideology to faith.  Let’s look at some instances of ideology?

You spot it in:

·         single-issue campaigners – the Greenies (rather than the Greens), anti-abortion groups, especially in the USA;

·         racist groups like the KKK and neo-Nazi youth packs;

·         “The Jews” of chapter 9 of John’s Gospel and the Chief Priests, the elders and the scribes of the synoptic gospels;

·         many political and religious leaders e.g. Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchannan in the USA, Milosevic.

·         adherents of fundamentalist religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons.  (You are wasting your time and theirs if you try to convert them).

·         Especially in ideological states such as communist Russia and Nazi Germany.

Some Characteristics of the Ideological Mindset:

·         Strong opinions – they despise the “wishy washy”;

·         Black and white opinions;

·         Intolerance of ambiguity;

·         Closed;  they have “the truth” cf. Lenin below;

·         Authoritarian – a recognized individual or group formulates policy and rules of praxis;

·         Compliance with the authoritarian policy and praxis is enforced;

·         Suspicion that there are dark forces of opposition out there;

·         Fear that a win by the opposition will be cataclysmic – “Five minutes to midnight!”;

·         The focus is always on ideas rather than relationships – hence “ideology”.

Ideological Organizations.

The two biggest and clearest examples of ideological organizations are Communist Russia and Nazi Germany.  What characterizes them precisely as ideological?

Membership.

There is a central party that alone determines policy and praxis.  Membership is selective.  Tested total adherence to organization structure, policy and praxis is a pre-requisite for membership.

Policy (What we hold).

Policy is formed by an inner group (politburo) at the top echelon of the party.  In both Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany the dictator totally controlled the politburo.

Organization.

·         Tight membership of the party.

·         Strong policy formation by politburo or leader/s.

·         Strong propaganda organization – agit prop – and indoctrination of members.

·         A bureaucracy (nomenklatura) to implement policy, selected on the basis of known compliance and controlled by preferment.

·         An internal security department to monitor any deviance from policy or praxis.

·         An external security department to watch the actual or potential enemy.

Praxis.

The praxis of ideological organizations shows some consistent similarities:

·         Uniformity.
A key quality is uniformity maintained by clear directives, implemented by the nomenklatura and monitored by security.  In many authoritarian organizations uniforms and badges of rank are worn, even celebrated, to reinforce the organization’s uniformity.

·         Resistance to change.
Ideological institutions tend to canonize their structures, policy and praxis.  They claim that they have “the truth” which is timeless and unchangeable.  Lenin claimed that Marxism (his version, mind you) was “the truth” which we had to accept and could not change.  The ideologue in the face of failure redoubles his efforts rather than review and formulate an alternative plan.

·         Goal displacement.
The central belief or purpose of the organization is often pushed off centre by peripheral issues which become central.  Furthermore, the newly elevated focus is frequently a behavioral rule or rules. Religions have an in-built tendency to moralize and use morality as a means of control.  Jehovah’s Witnesses are known chiefly by their refusal of blood transfusions.  Catholicism is known for its opposition to contraception, hardly its central belief.  Protestantism is known for opposing gambling and alcohol.

·         Tolerance of inconsistency
Ideological institutions tend to evolve by changing praxis while maintaining stated policy.  This can lead to inconsistencies such as the anti-abortion campaigner who takes his daughter to the abortionist.  Russian communism was renowned for the class system of its nomenklatura, totally at odds with its major tenets.  The speeches reinforce the unchanging policy but there is a credibility gap between the rhetoric and the praxis. 

·         Morale
is maintained by rallies, often martial in style, parades with the banners of the organization, wearing of the uniform and the singing of anthems.  Nazism made an art form of this.

·         Heresy Hunting
is sometimes used to purify policy adherance.  Mao’s Hundred Flowers Movement in 1956 brought out into the open people Mao saw as a threat to policy. Then the crackdown followed.[7]

·         Leadership Cult
Cf. Hitler, Stalin, Mao.

Ideology.

Let us then try to shape up a definition of ideology in the sense in which I am using it.

Ideology is very different from faith.  Ideology is a closed and compulsive system of beliefs and rules espoused by a person so that the closed belief system becomes an essential part of the person’s self-definition.  The compulsive component springs from a defensive fear that if one part of the belief system falls, it all falls.  The ideologue espouses the cause so passionately because of a need for the security it gives.  A fear of freedom characterizes the ideologue.

Ideologues are often called “True Believers”.  This is because of the tenacity with which they hold the party line. “True Believers” was the title of the TV series on the Australian Labour Party.  I suggest that real faith, at least real Christian faith, is not possible if the options are closed.  Metanoia – the ability to re-think - is an essential component of real faith.  They are not true believers.  They are true ideologues.

Faith

Faith, on the other hand, is a commitment of oneself to a way of viewing life as meaningful and of value.  Christian faith espouses Jesus as the Son of a God who is God’s emissary to bring salvation and life to us who are his people.  His life and death on the cross instances this hopeful view even in the face of suffering.  His cry, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” is followed by, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”  His life, isolated death and faith-full commitment to God leads the believer to make his own option for God.  This is not a judgement “on the balance of probabilities”.  It is a conviction that God is somehow at work.  And it results not so much in a conviction as a relationship of trust (faith) and loyal love (agape).  Jesus dies “faith-full”.

It entails a personal, day to day commitment of self to Jesus Christ, within the context of the church, which is primarily a community of fellow believers on a day to day journey of renewed commitment.

Nicholas Lash makes a very insightful statement right on this point in his book “A Matter of Hope”.  He speaks of his recurring insistence that:

“the ‘premise’ of Christianity is not an ‘idea’, but an event, a life lived, a deed done, a death undergone, and that the practice of Christianity – the ‘following of Christ’ in action, prayer and suffering – is prior to attempts critically and theoretically to ‘reflect’ that practice in Christian theology.”[8]

You could read this as implying that Christianity is not meant to be a religion. Religion (or spirituality) is something that people do to unify their personality around a system of values and to give meaning to their lives.  Christianity, on the other hand, celebrates what God has done for us.  You do not have to be “religious” or “spiritual” to be a Christian.

The Collapse of the Catholic Ideology.

My contention is that the strongly ideological Catholic church of the 50’s and early 60’s is collapsing.  Furthermore we have lost many of the Baby Boomers and even more of the Gen Xs because they are not inclined to accept that ideology.  This for four reasons:

·         In the main, these generations are not attracted by any totalitarian ideologies.  They do not like the containment or control.  They do not accept package deals.

·         They did not accept the morality expounded in the name of the Catholic Church.

·         They saw the church as a system of moral control rather than a proclaimer of life through faith in Jesus Christ.  The central message of Christianity was pushed off centre.

·         Even the articulation of the central Christian message was given in doctrinal language and imagery which was not credible to many of them.  This was the worst failure because we do have a message of salvation that is highly relevant to their lives, but needing a renewed articulation.

Were they right in rejecting the ideological aspect of Catholicism?

Let me state that I am a very orthodox Catholic, very conscious of the Church’s history and very conservative in the real sense of that word.  I believe that Christianity is a credal faith.  I accept all the solemnly defined doctrines of the Church, not only because they are defined, but also because they have been received.  The magisterium teaches;  the whole Church believes.

Being orthodox, however, does not mean being static. On the contrary.  The Church always needs to review and reform itself (Ecclesia semper reformanda).  This is always urgent because of that constant tendency of goal displacement to push non-central issues into the central position.

All doctrinal definitions are conditioned by history, culture and language.  This calls for constant re-articulation if we are to conserve their authentic meaning.

This should come as no surprise because a key element of Christian faith is metanoia – a readiness to change one’s frame of mind.  In Mark and Matthew the first words of Jesus call for metanoia.  Mark and Matthew see it as a pre-requisite for believing the good news.  Presumably their hearers were having difficulty in making the mental adjustment.  No wonder!  Jews had to forsake passionately held aspects of the law to become disciples of Jesus.  And they were called to accept the unthinkable in Jewish life, viz. that a man could be the image of the invisible God.

The ideologue has a mindset that finds metanoia difficult, if not impossible. Ideology resists reform or re-articulation.  In this it is an obstacle to real Christian faith.

Insofar as the Baby Boomers and Gen X’s have contributed to the break down of Catholic ideology by their in-built aversion to it they have done us a service.  The sad part of it is that those who have rejected Catholic faith in toto have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Where to from here?

I believe that there was virtually nothing we could have done to stop this process.  If we had spotted the trends in advance, we might have fine tuned the transition a little.  Cultural Catholicism has been on the wane for four centuries. The world church, as opposed to the European church, must adapt to the new and varied cultures in which it is being planted.  Karl Rahner said this in 1979[9] and Cardinal Konig[10] said it only a couple of months ago.    Ideological Catholicism has been under threat from the new knowledge, both within and outside the Church, since the renaissance. And the ideology has been officially pushed aside by Vatican II which is the most authoritative action of the whole Church this century.  The current restoration movement - almost inevitable in the wake of a council such as Vatican II - cannot succeed in the long run.

Reinstating the Central Christian Vision.

Two key areas need our attention.  Firstly, we must go back to the sources and rediscover the scriptures and the centrality of the message that Jesus is the Son of God.  He is God’s ultimate statement to the world that all will be well. The ideologists will kick and scream, but Jesus and his salvation is the centrepiece of Christianity, not an idea – and not the rules.

Re-articulating the Vision.

The other pressing demand is to re-articulate and re-imagine the faith.  A new cosmology has now become firmly set in the common imagination of our culture.  We live in a culture that assumes the rights of the individual, that believes in the unconscious, that takes evolution for granted and accepts the big bang and the expanding universe.

The challenge posed by the new cosmology is not so much to re-define our Christian faith.  It is to re-imagine it.

Furthermore, if the ‘premise’ of Christianity is an event then the most fundamental way to articulate it is by telling the story of that event.  It is the ultimate thriller.  Jesus is saved against all odds.  No wonder the little Aussie battler can feel at home with this story.  All can be well.  You can be as realistic as life’s troubles make you, yet you can hope.  “She’ll be right.” Neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but insuperably hopeful.

Jubilee

Proud of our history, we marvel at the energy, passion and faith that produced the articulations of the past.  The Christians of those days and those cultures were faithful disciples of Jesus.  Our challenge is to do the same on the threshold of the 21^st century.  The pall of mediaeval fear has gone.  In our own minds we have broken the bonds of an ideology which constrained the good news and distorted our focus.  We have re-discovered what the first century Christians learnt only with difficulty viz. that the law cannot save. As confident men and women with a shared faith and vision we come together to form the People of God and to re-imagine God with a gaze firmly focussed on Jesus.  All this has coincided with the new millenium.  If we persevere and move from ideology to faith, from fear to freedom this will truly be a jubilee – a year of release, reconciliation and rejoicing.

Copyright © 1999 Eric Hodgens
cedconfx

---

[1] Delumeau, Jean (1990). Sin and Fear: The Emergence of a Western Guilt Culture 13^th-18^th Centuries. St Martin’s Press, New York.

[2] Strauss, William & Howe, Neill (1991).  Generations.  Quill, William Morrow, New York

[3] Cf. Mackay, Hugh. (1997)  Generations:  Baby Boomers, their Parents and their Children.  Macmillan.

Pan Macmillan Australia PL. p. 14 ss.

[4] Ibid. p. 59 ss.

[5] Ibid. p. 135 ss.

[6] Douglas, Mary. (1982)  Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology.  Pantheon Books, New York.

[7] Cf. Salisbury, Harrison (1992). The New Emperors. Little, Brown & Co.

pp. 136-139 and Chang, Jung (1991). Wild Swans.  Flamingo, Harper Collins. Pp. 280-281.

[8] Lash, Nicholas (1981)  A Matter of Hope. University of Notre Dame Press. P. 285.

[9] Rahner, Karl.  Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II.  Address at Weston School of Theology April 8, 1979.

[10] Tablet 27 March 1999 p. 424.

 Trouble in Melbourne Catholic Education. 

Fr. Eric Hodgens

 Abstract.

Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart seems nervous about the reaction to his appointment of Stephen Elder as Director of Catholic Education last December.

Last Tuesday (27 February 2007) he emailed his address to the Senate of Priests to all the parishes. This unprecedented action suggests that its contents were pressing. It contained an extended defence of his appointment of Stephen Elder without any advertisement or search process.

His defence is that, because he is the archbishop, he has no need to justify any action he takes. This mentality - widespread among bishops – is seen as unethical by the world of business and administration.

It is also counterproductive. Mr Elder is a man of inadequate qualifications, experience and contacts for one of the biggest educational administration jobs in the country.

 

AustraliaThe Melbourne Director of Catholic Education holds one of the most prestigious jobs in the country.

Victoria’s Catholic Education system is the fourth biggest in Australia (exceeded only by the state systems of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland). This is why the appointment of Stephen Elder as Melbourne Director of Catholic Education by Archbishop Hart last December was so shocking and leaves him severely compromised.

The previous Director, Susan Pascoe, resigned September last after months of being sidelined by the diocesan authorities. She was ideally qualified for the job. First an experienced teacher, she then spent years in educational administration dealing with grass roots administration and curriculum matters. Her subsequent long experience dealing with governments and other educational administrations both state and private made her a well known and well connected figure in Australian education. In this role she kept up the standard of her predecessors Monsignor Tom Doyle and Father Frank Martin.

Stephen Elder’s background by contrast began with a short period in the classroom after finishing teacher training at Victoria University. Then followed some years as a Victorian Liberal MP including a period as Parliamentary Secretary for Education in the Kennett government. Losing his seat in the Bracks landslide, he was given a Canberra job by the Liberal Party in the office of David Kemp. In 2001 he got a middle management job in the planning section of the Catholic Education Office of Melbourne (CEO).

The reason a person of such limited qualifications and experience could get the top job is that Archbishop Hart made the appointment unilaterally without any advertising, search or selection process.

At the August meeting of the Melbourne Senate of Priests Archbishop Hart announced that Stephen Elder had been appointed Acting Director replacing Susan Pascoe while they advertised the Director’s position.

Mr Elder’s first exposure came at an October meeting between the CEO and Melbourne Parish Priests - significant because they are the managers of parish schools. Mr Elder’s presentation was underwhelming. He was asked whether his leapfrogging of more senior and qualified CEO staff meant that the search for a new director might be compromised. He replied that he would not accept the position unless he won it in a proper selection process.

Both of these assurances were annulled by a fax which arrived at parishes and schools on 20^th December after most of the school staff had left for the summer holidays. The fax did not even come out from the Archbishop’s office, but from the CEO and attributed to Stephen Elder.

Catholic bishops are renowned for lack of accountability to their clergy and church members. Church law, based on a monarchical model, protects their autocracy. This gives many of them an unwarranted self-assurance often leading to inadequate consultation and unwise decisions. This is the main explanation of the incompetence bishops showed in handling the paedophilia scandal in the USA and Ireland and now the collaboration scandal in Poland. Ironically this behaviour, which is second nature to them, is considered unethical in today’s world of business and administration. They need to learn morality from the secular world. 

Mr Elder owes much of his inside track promotion to the favour of Ted Exell, the Diocesan Finance Manager, and a key person in the archbishop’s kitchen cabinet. Former Directors have kept their relationship with the Diocesan Finance Office on a very formal level to maintain transparency in their handling of government funding. This has protected them when pressured to contribute from government educational monies to non-educational projects. Two such areas are land acquisition and Papal Youth Day costs. Being in the Diocesan Finance Manager’s pocket makes it harder to resist such pressures.

That will be only one of Mr. Elder’s problems. Fundamentally he lacks legitimacy in his appointment as Director. He has minimal qualifications and experience. There was no process to select the best possible candidate. He and the archbishop broke faith with the clergy by breaking their assurances that a transparent selection process would be followed. As a result, a man with inadequate qualifications and experience now faces a most demanding job leading Australia’s biggest Catholic education department with a demoralized administration, a wary team of Catholic principals and teachers and a very disillusioned clergy and laity.

Eric Hodgens is a Melbourne Parish Priest and a former staffer of the Melbourne Catholic Education Office.