Leaving Safe Harbours

There have been 348 responses made:

Individuals: 131 by post; 156 by email

Parishes and Deaneries: 25 Deaneries; 32 parishes

Groups 4 (Serra, Nugent Care, J+P, Southport Forum)

For this report I will collate the responses from Parishes, Deaneries and Groups (Section A) and then assign a section for individual responses; (section B).

61 responses in section A:

Comments: very encouraging; at last; there is no alternative; about time; the consultation document was a very fair expression of the way things are; a fait a complis; we recommend the proposal; we are happy with the proposal; we need a strong injection of hope; start the re-organisation now; pray for vocations; some felt the proposals were daunting, others that they were not radical enough; fully supportive of the initiatives; well received; what about the older priests; do not be overtaken by events – be prepared; the ideas are valid, Pastoral Areas are a practical solution to the issues faced; we would have welcomed a more positive presentation; concern about the lack of contact between priest and people; we not only think, but we know from experience that the bigger unit which would encompass a number of parishes makes sense; communities need to know their priests and vice versa; priests are being spread too thinly, they are exhausted and frustrated; there are opportunities in the wider area; we need one new Church in our Pastoral Area; could priests live together; the Pastoral letter and proposals are hopeful and positive; we must ensure priests do what only they can do; “what will be, will be”; resignation and confusion; we distrust the Archdiocese; distrust of the process – have things already been decided; the Holy Spirit is in the document and its proposals; recognition of the need to change and in principle the proposals seem right.

Of the 61 responses only one was largely negative pointing out that the proposal focuses on the wrong areas, it is building centred, not people centred.

Additional points and comments:

† We need to make better use of our catholic schools as places where the faith is caught and not just taught.

† Spiritual development of the laity must be a priority.

† Individual parishes do not want to loose their identity.

† What will the relationship be between volunteers and paid workers?

† The Archdiocese needs to have a missionary spirit.

† There needs to be real co-operation ecumenically.

† Do not deny us the Eucharist, but there should be more than Mass.

† The drop in the numbers of people at mass is more serious than the fall in the numbers of clergy – what are we doing about it?

† There are parts of the world where priests are plentiful; we should import some.

† If we “leave safe harbours” without more prayer we will sink.

† There needs to be more thought about the role of Deacons.

† Parish identity should not be based on the PP.

† Training of the laity is vital.

† The Archdiocese must not impose a solution; it must bring people with it.

† We must consult our young people

† The document says our primary role is missionary – but is that lived out? What about outreach. “Go make disciples…” Be more positive and proactive in our attempt to evangelise. Should we not become active in politics?

† Who will hold the purse strings? How will funding for Pastoral Areas be decided?

† Catholic secondary schools should look at supporting the work of parishes.

† People need to be able to pop in to a local parish office; there might be a need for more than one administrative centre.

† Structural change need to be accompanied by renewal and a revitalisation of faith.

† Priests find it difficult to delegate. There needs to be more consistency of approach amongst priests. New attitudes will be necessary amongst the clergy. Are too many assumptions made about the abilities (or not) of the priests?

† If lay ministries are to be developed they need to be resourced by training and recognition. Religious education does not end with school.

† Change must not focus on changes of numbers of priests and masses, but on the potential for lay people to evangelise at home, church and in the world.

† What is the purpose of religious education in our catholic schools?

† Pastoral Area councils need to be formed so that lay people and priests can work together and make decisions together. A Diocesan Council should be formed.

† There is no real vision in the proposals, no leadership, the Pastoral Areas are too much like Deaneries, more radical solutions are needed.

† Parishes are vital in our future – they could be lay led.

† The age profile of most parishes is elderly – what does this say about the future?

† There is a call for clear, simple and frequent communication.

† We need some models of collaborative ministry – we have forgotten how to do it.

† We must be prepared to sell unused land and buildings (only when they ceased to be of significant benefit) but not pulling out of areas of deprivation and challenge.

† Is there to be a development of small groups and faith sharing communities?

† There is no real consensus concerning priests living together.

† There needs to be much more communication at all levels,

† What is the role of a priest? There are implications for formation and on going training if the role is changing.

† Churches are communities not buildings, and we must ensure that worshipping communities remain together.

† We need a new and dynamic sense of individual and collaborative vocation.

† How can we promote vocations and Catholic family life?

† We need to keep our buildings; this must not be an economics exercise to save money.

† We need to look at sharing resources across the Diocese; the “rich” must help the “poor.”

† Care must be taken of the vulnerable and elderly. The weakest must be heard.

† A simple catechesis arising from a profound ecclesiology would ensure all involved are given hope. Without theological vision all the changes feel like desperation – called, we gather at mass, inspired we go out to change the world.

† Priests cannot just be overworked. If there is no shortage of priests in the south of England could we share.

† How can we support parents and families to do their “job”?

† Good and effective communication is necessary.

† People feel the need to have a relationship with a priest.

† Ecumenical dialogue so that we can learn from one another.

† Invest in people and faith, not bricks and concrete.

Section B: 287 individual responses:

About 97% of the responses were broadly supportive of what is emerging; they were encouraging about the need to change and to do something – to do nothing is not an option. There were about 3% of the responses that were generally negative.

The following is a summary of the general themes that have come from the individual responses.

I. Vocations Promotion – the need for a recruitment drive; (a number of respondents called for priests from abroad to be used).

II. Parish identity – is the local parish a branch of a multi-national? The local Eucharistic community is the whole church present. How can we best work together?

III. Catholic schools and the relationship between school and parish. What is the effect on a parish if no children or young people attend Mass? Should we base pastoral effort around the school community? Schools should be centres of evangelisation outside normal school hours. In schools we should evangelise and not just catechise. Why do our Catholic schools exists?

IV. Lay formation; bible study; parish ministry training programmes; spiritual nourishment; nourished by the Word of God; adult education. How do we live and grow in faith?

V. Evangelisation: the ecumenical imperative is part of this. The Church must be salt and light. Youth evangelisation is needed. What gives us life and what life can we bring to others?

VI. Financial: Who makes the decisions? Should resources be more equitably shared or do some parishes (or Pastoral Areas) have everything and some very little?

How do you feel about the observations made? Are there others you would like to add?

True; good starting point; not so much reform, but preparation for the future we are considering; fair and comprehensive understanding of the way things are; is this just a way of doing more with less; enlightened, innovative and long overdue; doing nothing is not an option – in addition to the falling numbers of priests communities need to reach out and serve their existing communities better; let us not hog the coast line, but sail into and confront the storm; sustainability; we need to reinvent the parish; thank God the ship has sailed; what about parishes run by religious orders; there is no alternative; common sense; let us put Vatican II into action.

What is your reaction to the broad proposals we are suggesting? How would they look if implemented in your area?

Make sure you use local knowledge; personal contact is so important – the lack of it is one reason people stop going to church; good communications necessary; we must not let the church become impersonal; we need to address the problem of why people are falling away from Church; take care of the needs of the elderly; Pastoral Areas and collaboration will liberate enthusiastic lay people; there is a real difference between rural and non rural areas; look after the priests; finance is an issue; how can we learn to work together; we don’t want our church to close; if there cannot be Mass there should be the opportunity to receive Holy Communion; diversity of pastoral practice; genuine collaborative ministry will take years to develop; change is never easy (but is essential).

Is there anything missing? Are there other major issues that we need to take into consideration?

We need to find a way to help parents with religious education at home; evangelisation; parish councils must be part of the solution; look at enhancing the role of Deacons; priests need to be brought “on board”; centralised communications and web sites; priests living together; people need help to get involved; “The Sign we Give”; bring priests in from abroad; have we written off the large proportion who are not with us on Sundays; new movements, lay communities, groups and sodalities; priority is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; ecumenical considerations; we need to be inclusive – of all the baptised and those of other faiths; decentralisation; an ecumenical drop in (admin) centre; encouragement to keep Sunday holy; make sure there is a place for the weak and those in need; issues relating to the employment of administrative and pastoral assistants; parish missions; respect for the Blessed Sacrament; parochialism could be the death of the church; within a pastoral area there needs to be focus for different groups in different places; we need an action document, not a discussion document; nothing in the document about Deacons; priests should be teachers of the faith; why not have parishes, but also have chapels of convenience, just Sunday Mass centres served by priests from other parishes; if we are being launched into the deep, then we need drastic solutions, not just piecemeal patching up; all the baptised are priests – let that be true. “Do whatever he says” was sound advice from Mary at Cana, but can have terrible consequences when extended to the PP!

The following suggestions, comments and questions were raised that need to be noted, but are outside the scope of the present discussion and consultation:

Married priests, ordaining women, women Deacons or at least a female equivalent of the Deaconate; voluntary celibacy.

Of the 287 individual replies 9 were largely negative.

They made the following points:

The decisions are already made; this is nothing but a sham.

The document had no vision, just filled with mechanics of crisis management.

People feel betrayed by what has been done and by what will be done.

Why change clustering when it is working so well.

The document is nothing but a conspiracy to turn our church upside down and create a

lay led church with a subsumptive priesthood. They don’t like traditional priests.

Pastoral Areas is just a cosmetic change.

Keeping the parish structure would make much more sense– close some churches and make bigger parishes.

This plan is heresy – there is no shortage of priests we belong to a universal church, the church cannot and does not change.

What is required is a return to basics.

In conclusion:

Over 3,000 people in the Diocese have attended parish and deanery meetings, over 280 individuals (often families) have replied to the original paper; so it would be fair to say that these comments represent the views of at least 4,000 people. The overwhelming response is go ahead, move forward, we are with you. We have concerns, but we cannot remain as we are, we are aware of that – please listen to us, please consult us, please involve us in the decision making process, but we trust the work so far (most of it) and urge you to carry on.

Fr Philip Inch May 2006