_______________________________
October 19, 2009
James Lundholm-Eades, Task Force Director
Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis
328 West Kellogg Blvd
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Mr. Lundholm-Eades:
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people of the Archdiocese in addressing the problems we face as a local church.
We understand that both the Archbishop and the Task Force want to enable a vibrant Catholic community at the Archdiocesan level. We appreciate this goal since we believe the Church’s mission is to create a diocesan community that manifests God’s love for humanity as embodied in Jesus. So we too want a vibrant local church.
From our point of view, vibrancy in a human community is not possible unless all the relevant questions people want to ask are allowed on the table. The process for the strategic planning, although ostensibly an attempt to listen, is flawed in one essential aspect: it does not allow for the discussion of what the facts mean. What should be done will depend in large part on the analysis of the facts in relation to the Church’s mission.
To call the process “highly consultative” while barring questions about why the current situation is as it is will only demoralize people. We have heard many say they do not trust this process. Despite reassurances to the contrary, they say the decisions have already been made. They say that the emails, phone messages, and letters go into “a black hole.” People’s refusal to accept the obvious good will of the reassurances is symptomatic of the flaw in the process. We fear the goal of creating a vibrant local church will not be accomplished, though the resources may be efficiently re-allocated to look better on paper.
We request an Archdiocesan-wide discussion of all the relevant questions people want to ask. The meaning questions we would like to address are the following:
• Why do young adults abandon faith formation classes immediately after Confirmation? Why are such a large percentage of children offered no faith formation at all or, if the offer is made, why are they not accepting it?
• Why don’t two-thirds of registered Catholics go to Mass?
• Why are good and capable men not stepping up for ordination as priests?
• Why is celibacy required for the role of priest?
• Why aren’t women’s vocations to the ordained priesthood recognized and accepted?
• Why are third and fourth generation American Catholics leaving the church in great numbers?
• How is the money collected by the Archdiocese spent? We want the Archbishop to be accountable for his expenditures as the parishes are accountable for theirs.
The Task Force’s response when these questions are raised is that they are outside the scope of its mandate. Of course, they are, and that is the problem. We do not think that response will suffice.
If the Task Force requests the power from the Archbishop to facilitate such a discussion with the people of the Archdiocese and is denied that power, we suggest that as a matter of conscience you consider resigning en masse unless and until a full communication process is approved.
Though we are not experts, we have many ideas about how this process could be organized and will be happy to discuss them with you. There are many professional discussion facilitators in the Archdiocese who would, we are sure, be available to help. Some of the crucial elements are that all subjects be allowed to be discussed, no threats of job loss or excommunication will follow open discussion, and that representatives from all the people, not just those chosen by leadership, be involved in planning the discussion.
We think this is the only way to legitimate the process.
Sincerely yours,
Paula Ruddy
Michael Bayly
Bernie Rodel
Co-Chairs, Catholic Coalition for Church Reform
The PCV Editorial Team received the following e-mail message from author Charles Pilon:
ReplyDeleteTo have any impact on the future of this archdiocese, I believe we must firmly and steadfastly rededicate ourselves to further renewal of the Church initiated by John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council – an experience that so many of us today who are older Catholics found to be enlightened, so spirited (with a capital S) and so liberating.
Since the mid-1980’s the institutional Roman Catholic Church has experienced a severe retrogression – going backwards – to a pre-Vatican II way of life and of belief – a return to the Church of the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s and, in fact, the Church of the previous 400 years.
That version of the Catholic Church had been living defensively since the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The institutional Catholic Church by and large hadn’t moved beyond the reforming Council of Trent (1543-1563), the Syllabus of Errors proclaimed by Pius IX in 1864 and the first Vatican Council (1870). We, the Church, the Body of Christ, had become museum keepers rather than gardeners creating new life, new insight, new energy.
John XXIII said let’s dust the furniture in this Church. Let’s open some windows and let in some fresh air. Let’s make room, he said, for faithful dissent and let’s discover new levels of understanding of what it is that we believe and stand for instead of living with blinders of absolute certitude. And don’t worry about the prophets of doom, he said – those who may find this opening to the modern world risky or wrong. Pay no attention to them, he counseled.
We were trapped in a belief and way-of-life system, a deadly control system – one never intended by Jesus, one he would not recognize today. Jesus taught us a way of life. John XXIII called us back to that way when he called for Vatican II. It was timely and it was right. It addressed what and who we must be in the modern world.
Let us, therefore, because we must, renew ourselves in light of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and, in the light of that renewal, plan our future. How can we possibly plan strategically for our future without doing so?
Charles Pilon
c.a.pilon@comcast.net
The PCV Editorial Team received the following e-mail message from Roger Dick via CCCR:
ReplyDeleteI think your letter is a bull’s-eye. It is precisely timed and couches hard truths in conciliatory language. I, undoubtedly, would have been less gentle.
What you speak of I observed firsthand at the meeting I attended at St. Richard’s. It seemed a charade, like being invited into a card game in which all the hands had already been dealt. The discussion so circumscribed as to be strangled. It was like being a janitor invited in at the last minute to help clean up at a crime scene. “Now, sir, how would you get rid of the blood on the floor?” “But wait! Shouldn’t we first be asking who got murdered? And who murdered him?”
I will send a copy of your letter as an endorsement.
Roger
And why does the Holy spirit keep sending you Popes who don't agree with you? It's a mystery! Or is it?
ReplyDelete