A critical juncture at which unstoppable change takes place.
- There is sufficient consensus that the earth has reached a tipping point in regards to global warming.
- There is concern that the United States is nearing a tipping point in regards to social division and acrimony.
- Has the Catholic Church reached a tipping point in regards to its demise as a relevant and integral witness to God’s Kingdom?
In October 1962 Pope John XXIII called for a major council to review the place of the Church in the world and to revitalise the spirit of the Church. The “interim” Pope – as he was perceived by many – opened the windows of the Church to let out stale air and inhale the winds of the world.
This momentous event promised a new “Spring of the Holy Spirit”, a regeneration of faith, a prophetic voice of wisdom in bearing the Good News of Jesus Christ to the nations.
There was a daunting output of documents – new teaching – from the Council, with 4 major Constitutions and 12 Decrees. The most significant and far-reaching in terms of the Church’s vision of itself in the world was the very last document proclaimed, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World or Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope).
Therein lay the true and full recognition of the laity in the church, not as spectators and receivers of ministry from clergy, but as participants in ministry. It was as if the “Clerical” Church – Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Religious – suddenly woke to the reality that there were other players in the Church aside from themselves; that the “laity” were included in St Peter’s First Letter: “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart … “ (1 Peter 2:9)
Coming out of a narrow, and at times harsh, catechesis based on obedience to the Ten Commandments and the mandates of Church Canon Law, the Catholic populace saw opened before them a new vista of grace and status in the Church, that they too had a vital part to contribute as members of a Church that was the concentrated bearer of the Jesus Story to the world.
Following the Council, the promise of church renewal was visionary, and a great amount of essential change took place, however over time the work of renewal became tedious and slow. It was as if someone or some people were putting their foot on the brake.
The process of change in any institution – religious or secular – meets with opposition within the ranks of that institution. Within the church there were those Cardinals and Bishops and clergy who began having second thoughts about the renewal. Or who perhaps always had second thoughts. Prominent among these was one Cardinal, one Bishop and one theologian; the theologian attended Council sessions as an advisor. These men had very strong connections and each of them became Pope:
- Cardinal Giovanni Montini who became Pope Paul VI following the death of Pope John XXIII
- Bishop Karol Wojtyła who was promoted to be a Cardinal by Pope Paul VI and became Pope John Paul II
- Father Joseph Ratzinger was promoted to be a Cardinal by Pope Paul VI; he was nominated as Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith by Pope John Paul II and became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.
These three men led, that is, controlled the church for half a century. It was not soft leadership, it was strong, very strong leadership, particularly that of John Paul II with Ratzinger at his side in his dominant role as Prefect of the (sometimes feared) Congregation of the Faith. John Paul II strode the world stage and achieved an enormous amount of good, not only within the Church, but within the world.
Nonetheless, in spite of all the good that was achieved by these three men, the bright light from the Second Vatican Council was firstly dimmed, then snuffed out. Their ultimate legacy is a Church in a parlous position for faith and mission.
Is the Church nearing a tipping point, or has the point already been tipped?
In 1968 Pope Paul IV stunned the world and appalled a majority of Catholics around the world with his encyclical Humane Vitae which, in addressing the matter of birth control, forbade the use of artificial contraceptives. In doing this he went against The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control established by Pope John XXIII and strengthened by Pope Paul VI himself. The Commission had said “YES” to artificial contraceptives.
The ramifications in terms of lay participation and leadership in the Church were horrible. Part of a whole generation of young married Catholics abandoned the Church never to return. The shame was that they did not claim primacy of conscience, maintain their own decision and remain as active participants in the Church. John Henry Cardinal Newman remarks in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk: “I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please – still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”
Regardless of the stormy outcry from within and from outside the Church, Paul VI never relented, and this teaching marked his legacy, symbol of a clerical church keeping the laity in the pews.
The ultimate legacy of John Paul II and Benedict XVI is more complex, and more damaging in spite of the great good achieved, especially by John Paul II. Theirs was a doctrinaire Christianity, an affirmation of Clerical Tradition rather than exploring the richness in Church renewal and a revitalized laity.
A strong manifestation of Church renewal through a revitalized laity was the emergence of Basic Christian Communities firstly in South America, then gaining traction in predominately Catholic countries such as in Central America and the Philippines. Formed around the study and reading of the Scriptures and expressing a preferential option for the poor, these communities were like a light in the dark for people living under repressive regimes.
John Paul II did not understand them, considered them Marxist, and chose not to dialogue with this grassroots movement. Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation of the Faith, could not fit them into his theological structures and outlawed them, in spite of the substantial theological underpinning these communities had. Current Pope Francis understands them, he has been there and seeks to move the Church back there; however, the legacy of his predecessors has been damming.
Integral to the legacy of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in South America, which had consequences far reaching, was the political appointment of Bishops that favoured the established elite rulers and was detrimental to the Basic Christian Communities.
John Paul II expressed his great concern for correct doctrine by having published in 1992 a New Catechism of the Catholic Church. This at the same time seeking to silence the Basic Christian Communities who sought to discover at greater depth the Jesus Story as it connected with their lives.
In 1998 the so-called Third Rite of Confession – a community celebration of penance, healing and forgiveness – was suppressed through the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger. In spite of the great reception of this sacrament by Catholic laity – or perhaps because of this – the Catholic laity are deprived of a key sacramental ritual. With the exception of special places of worship, the Sacrament of Penance is now rarely availed of.
Because of his long reign, Pope John Paul II had nominated almost the entire College of Cardinals such that upon his death the question was asked “Who else to replace him than Joseph Ratzinger?” The conclave only took one day, so the reign of Benedict XVI began, an extension of the reign of John Paul II.
As for John Paul II, a great concern of Benedict XVI was correct doctrine and correct wording. A consummate producer of books – he has had 66 books published in his lifetime – his manifesto of sorts was the new Missal, a scandal of extraordinary expense, whose English translation is without soul or poetry, a convolution of words that ramble off the pages. His writings show a person of great intellect, a professor of great learning, but little connect with people. From his ordination Joseph Ratzinger continued directly into study, teaching and writing. He had no pastoral experience, so when created a Cardinal by Paul VI, many an eyebrow was raised in question.
Having said all that, the one dominant issue that casts a huge shadow across the legacy of both Popes is their failure to address the issue of sexual abuse by clergy and religious. John Paul II was intransigent, refusing to accept the reality of the worldwide scandal, responsible for a total coverup, and giving the signal to Cardinals and Bishops across the world to follow his example.
In these current days of 2020, the ugly matter has arisen once more via the McCarrick Report, outcome of the investigation into ex-Cardinal McCarrick who was demoted as Cardinal and dismissed from the clerical state in 2017. The report, long in coming, provides evidence that John Paul II was warned against appointing McCarrick archbishop of Washington, D.C. in 2000. The warnings came from trusted sources in Washington and Rome which substantiated reports that McCarrick had been abusing young men for many years. Yet John Paul II proceeded with the appointment and a year later promoted him a Cardinal.
The McCarrick Report uncovers further dark realities with the consistent mention of John Paul II’s private secretary of many years, retired Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, himself an icon of Catholic Poland. It is alleged that he connived in covering up sex abuse by Catholic clergy both in Rome and in Poland. A new storm is breaking over the Polish Church. In Rome questions have been raised over the strength of influence that Dziwisz held over John Paul II as the Pope’s health deteriorated over the last years of his reign.
The connect between the three previous Popes was broken with the election of Pope Francis in 2013. He became the first in many ways. First Jesuit to be Pope, the first from the Americas and the Southern Hemisphere; he is the first Pope from outside Europe since the 8th century.
Importantly for the Church of the Poor, Francis has the bearing of a Shepherd rather than a Ruler. He is new breath of the Holy Spirit into a stagnating church, and seeks to stir the embers of renewal that were lit 50 years ago.
In undertaking his mission within the Church and for the world, Francis has to battle with at least two major headwinds that strive to suck the energy from his sails.
The first major headwind is the American Bishops who, as a Conference, are united in opposition to Francis. Theirs is an alarming reality wherein they have jumped into the boat of Trumpism, have signalled their opposition to Biden and have made no effort to heal the dangerously divided American nation and the dangerously divided American church. They have declared their “preeminent priority” as the outlawing of abortion speaking as ideologues rather than Shepherds the Church. They have forgotten their preeminent priority comes from the Gospel – not from Trump – and that is to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal. (Luke 9:2)
Dating back to the 1980s a growing new conservatism in the United States has found its feet and matured both in the secular world and reflected in the Catholic Church. The Papacy of Benedict XVI substantially fuelled this reactionary movement. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is the flag bearer of this movement, their purpose the rejection of the Second Vatican Council. While dismaying, their attitude should not be surprising; almost the entire membership of the USCCB were nominated Bishops by John Paul II, after his image and likeness.
The second major headwind – perhaps it is better to refer to it as an anchor – is the loss of numbers. Loss of priests and religious, loss of lay people actively participating in the Church. Loss of people of any class or status with the commitment to energise and revitalize the Church. Numbers do not make a Church, but it is impossible to have a Christian community without energized members.
The biggest representative age group among Church goers in the western world is the Retired Group. A majority of their children and grandchildren are not following in their footsteps. The actual number of people nominated as Catholics in Australia has not fallen so greatly; baptisms of children and grandchildren continue, for whatever reasons. However, as of 2017 the number Catholics regularly going to Church sits at a little over 12%. (Attendance at Mass is an indicator of participation; the guarantee of being a Christian is Good Works.)
Over the past 50 years presbyteries, convents and religious houses have been emptying. Seminaries and houses of religious formation attract very few new applicants.
Dominant among the host of reasons for this change is the abject failure of Church leaders, beginning with the three Popes to bring to life The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.
Consequent to this is the disillusionment of laity who sought true partnership in the life of the Christian community; who sought to be creators of grace, not simply receivers of grace from an embedded clergy.
Aligned to this is the failure to allowed married clergy, both men and women. The demand of celibacy could have been changed generations ago. It is believed that Pope Francis was considering such prior to the Amazonian Synod, but withdrew this item for fear of a soft schism in the American Church.
Aligned to this is the failure to allow a Catholic Community who have no access to ordained priests, to celebrate the Eucharist themselves as a community. Vast areas of Australia are now bereft of the regular presence of priests. If the baptised are a Priestly People, they together in community can act as true Ministers of the Eucharist.
It is clear that growing secularism and globalism have affected the numbers of people, especially the youth, who participate in church. However, by sticking to the old clerical ways the Church has shut the door on generations of young people – and many older people – who see no place for themselves in such a church.
It is a telling fact that so many priests who leave the ministry, leave the church completely. Is this failure of faith or act of disillusionment?
Over the past 50 years what evidence do we see that the Church has sought to respond to this situation?
The former Bishop of Toowoomba in southern Queensland, Bishop Bill Morris, certainly did seek with great courage, faith and insight to address the situation, not just for the present, but for the future. For his efforts he was sacked by career Cardinals sitting in Rome, with no due process or transparency. And seemingly with previous little support from his fellow Bishops in Australia.
In the 1970s our family participated in their local rural parish in the Dawson Callide Valley region of Central Queensland. At that time there were 3 Parishes in that whole region with a total of 4 priests and 10 regular Mass Centres.
Fifty years later that same region now is incorporated as 1 Parish with 1 Priest and 4 regular Mass Centres. The priest who is also the Parish Administrator is from India, one of the many priest-imports in this Diocese, who are rotated after a specific number of years. The area he covers is approximately 20,000 sq kms. To celebrate the Eucharist each weekend in the Mass centres he is required to travel some 420 kms. Burdened also by difficulty in communicating in Australian English, and without an assistant, how can he be a true Shepherd when his time is consumed with travel? How can he get to know his people? How can he endure?
The example of this Parish is described here because it is so familiar to me. At the same time, it reflects the situation of Parishes throughout the Diocese of Rockhampton and throughout rural Australia.
We witness what has NOT happened over the past 50 years in the Church. What will the situation be looking forward 50 years to 2070?
Have we reached the Tipping Point already, or is it yet to come?
