This Gospel text from St Luke Chapter 14, verse 1, then verses 7 to 14 is used on the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C. Frequently when it comes up in the liturgical cycle preachers speak about humility. But it isn’t primarily about humility at all, it is however about relationship to Jesus.

In context, the previous passage from St Luke for 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C, was describing those who are the friends of God, and reminding us of the trials and tribulations they went through to get their seat at the banquet of heaven.

Luke Chapter 14 opens with Jesus accepting a dinner invitation at the home of an influential Pharisee. However, the missing verses 2 to 6 tell us that this dinner was far from a meeting of hearts and minds assisted by good food and drink. It begins with a man with dropsy being presented to Jesus, and since this dinner fell on a Sabbath, controversy was expected. Hence it feels like a well thought out trap, and that Jesus is more their entertainer than their guest.

Jesus, of course, heals the man. But before and after the healing He asks the assembled group of scribes and Pharisees a different question as an entry way for discussion about the Law and the Sabbath, and about normal emergency situations where the Sabbath Law gets bent (e.g. a son falls into a well).

Jesus gets met with stony silence. None of them wish to engage with Him on this issue, and Jesus must have been deeply disappointed because it should have been quite a fascinating discussion with so many learned minds in the same place. He would have been grieved too, because these men more than most knew that a rabbinical question was the starting place for learning, and this refusal indicates that there was nothing they wanted to learn from Jesus, and that their hearts were quite closed to Him.

Not deterred, as a good guest Jesus gives them something else as a discussion starter, in the form of a parable. Now a parable is a bit like a riddle, except that it uses everyday situations and includes an unexpected twist, and from that twist people could begin to fathom the purpose and meaning of the parable. The thing is, we often think of this part of scripture as pure teaching, and not a parable at all.

Perhaps, you, like me, have always envisioned a long straight banqueting table with at least 20 chairs or more, when this Gospel gets read out. But the Greek is very clear that at this dinner they were all reclining in the ancient manner. If so, please do yourself a favour, and go and read this blog post about the dining customs of Ancient Rome, and in particular how the couches were arranged in a Triclinium, and where the hosts reclined, where the higher valued guests reclined, and where the lower valued guests reclined.

The best positions had both proximity to the host, and the best uninterrupted views. The worst positions had less proximity to the host, and the worst views, and needed head swiveling when anything important took place eg. new food arriving, new guests arriving, entertainers arriving and performing.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/reclining-and-dining-and-drinking-in-ancient-rome/

The Romans based their practices on the Greeks, and the Greeks based their practices on the more ancient cultures of Egypt, Persia and Israel. Due to the Hellenistic era in Israel (see Maccabees), and due to the Roman occupation at the time of Jesus, everyone was familiar with this dining arrangement – and it is highly likely that the dinner Jesus went to was arranged upon similar lines.

In this parable Jesus sets two scenarios before His dining companions.

In the first scenario, a more distinguished guest arrives.
In the second scenario, Jesus suggests that the best place to aim for is the lowest place.

Most of you have had a share in arranging wedding receptions or other sit-down dinner events. Quite a lot of time is taken in working out the best seating arrangements for the guests to try and maximize everyone’s enjoyment of the occasion. Anyone at enmity with each other you wanted seated far apart from each other. Often you even work out place cards, or at least make sure all the family knows where you want each guest to sit.

The only time this apple cart gets overturned is when an uninvited guest shows up, or when someone who didn’t think he could make it suddenly finds that he can.

With the Jewish emphasis on hospitality, and the necessity of finding lodgings on a journey of several days, having an uninvited guest, or a guest added at the last minute, was far from uncommon.

In fact, this parable could easily be called the parable of the uninvited guest, or the parable of the extra guest.

The context in which Jesus placed this parable was the jockeying for the best reclining positions that went on as they entered the dining area, and this jockeying had probably even begun as each one arrived and had a guess at where he fitted on the pecking order of influence.

For them this dinner was more about enhancing or maintaining their power and influence than anything else. At such dinners among influential scribes and Pharisees lots of insider deals were done, or sensitive information shared.

Can you get the image of a group of men playing a game of one-up-man-ship among themselves to decide who is the most important person to take the best dining position near the host? Can you see that such a masculine gaggle completely ignores whatever the host may want? Can you perceive the underlying assumption that the host plays these games too, and that for them this group of men such behaviour is quite normal?

Now look back at the parable of Jesus, in the first part the host says, ‘Give up your place to this man’. It’s rather brusque, isn’t it? And it is more likely said to an acquaintance or to an unknown, than to a friend.

In the second part of the parable of Jesus, the host says, ‘My friend, move up higher’.

Therefore, it is friendship with the host that determines your table place far more than any power and influence you may wield.

To some extent, the advice of Jesus is practical, since if you are an uninvited guest or a latecomer, then it is pragmatic to take the lowest place, and not earn everyone else’s wrath for dislodging them from where they were. Far better for the host to initiate that rearrangement. The advice of Jesus also contains a revelation; because if you take His advice, you will learn whether how close you think your relationship with the host is matches how close the host thinks your relationship is – especially if your host leaves you in that lowest place.

When we think of the heavenly banquet to come, and Who the divine host will be, perhaps we will now put a lot more effort into our relationship with God, and a lot less effort in comparing ourselves to others.

Jesus also leaves us clues about how to improve our relationship with God.

Remember that He said, ‘Which of you, if his son falls into a well, or his ox, will not pull him out on a Sabbath day without any hesitation?’

What did Jesus do? He healed the man with dropsy without hesitation. This man, despised by the dinner group, was considered as important as a son or an ox to Jesus.

Let that sink in.

Consider that the vast number of recipients of the miracles of Jesus were poor, or crippled, or lame, or blind…. Consider how many miracles were worked for scribes and Pharisees.

Who was the one excluded from the dinner? The man healed of dropsy.

Who would Jesus have included, if He were the host for this dinner beyond all the others? The man healed of dropsy.

What else did Jesus tell us? ‘When you have a party, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind’.

He is inviting us to get to know the people who are special to Him, and the ones He highly values. Doing good towards whom Jesus accounts as His friends is the path of wisdom. Even on earth, if you help a friend that I care about, my heart is going to be extra kindly disposed towards you, yes?

Is any of this about humility?
Is all of this about friendship with Jesus?
​
May the Lord Jesus grant us the grace to act upon this. Amen.

Earlier this week I watched the [S]election Code movie online. It took about an hour to watch. I highly recommend that you take the time to view it for yourself – and to consider sharing it with others:

https://selectioncode.com/

If you saw 2000 Mules, this one will have around 10 times the impact upon you.
If you didn’t, 2000 Mules was about how geo-tracking and CCTV proved that election fraud was taking place at voting drop boxes in the USA. It too is worth viewing:

https://2000mules.com/

Why? You might ask. Because unless we begin to comprehend just how deep the swamp goes, we won’t be able to comprehend the depths from which God is saving us, and we won’t appreciate fully the unlikely warriors He has been raising up for this purpose.

​On the one hand it is truly sobering; on the other hand there is hope. Hope, that by many people of goodwill co-operating with God’s help, that these evils will be eradicated, and never permitted to happen ever again.

Thankfully I live in a place where paper ballots are obligatory, and all ballots are tabulated by hand, under multiple scrutineers, and re-counted whenever necessary.

But this movie rings alarm bells for any place where there are electronic voting systems and electronic vote counting systems.

It should also ring alarm bells for any electoral official who has a social media account.
​
May God in His great mercy cause the eradication of all corruptible electoral systems from the face of the earth, never to return. Amen.

The Gospel for this Sunday, the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C comes from the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 13, and has Jesus advising those listening to Him to struggle to enter by the narrow door into the kingdom of heaven.

This reflection has been written homily-style.

Luke 13:22-30
Lord, will only a few be saved?
That’s a good question, isn’t it?
And one we all want, and need, an answer to.
Even Jesus thought it was a good question,
because He answered it with a message that we struggle to decode,
so we may as well call it a parable.
In essence the answer Jesus gave was,
‘It’s up to you, how much do you want to enter the kingdom of heaven?’
Perhaps this seems strange to us,
because we are so accustomed to thinking,
‘Doesn’t everyone get to heaven?’
Let’s look at the criteria for getting in,
and the examples Jesus gave of those who were already in.

The first criteria is that it will take some considerable effort on our part.
The second criteria is that it will be through a narrow door, which indicates that it has to be traversed on foot since it isn’t wide enough for a horse or a car, and it will fit only one person at a time.
The third criteria is that we have to be recognisably kin to the master of the house, God the Father.
We need to look, dress, sound, and act, like members of the kingdom of heaven.
I’m sure you have had the experience of saying about someone, ‘they’ve got a strange accent,
there’s something European in it,
and yet there’s something North American in it as well.
I wonder where on earth they come from?’
We can’t have an accent tinged by the world; or be ‘half of the kingdom’ and ‘half of the world’.
Getting rid of the vestiges of the world from our lives is going to take effort, isn’t it?

Jesus gives us a few more tips.
The first tip is that we don’t know when God the Father is going to decide to bolt the door,
so we shouldn’t delay any of our efforts.
The second tip is that staying at the acquaintance level of relationship with Jesus is not enough.
It is very easy to eat and drink a meal with someone,
and yet not become committed to them.
It is very easy to listen to good teaching,
and yet not commit to putting it in to practice.
Where can we easily eat and drink with Jesus,
and listen to His teaching?
We are doing that right now, here at Mass.
But are we taking these opportunities of being with Jesus,
and letting these encounters with Jesus change us?

So, who has already arrived?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets.
Did any of these people have easy lives? No, far from it.
Did God put them all through a testing process before adjudging them His friends? Yes, He did.
Some had heart-wrenching decisions, some had long years waiting for God’s promises to be fulfilled, many were scorned and laughed at, many were persecuted, many had great sorrows.
All of them prayed, remained faithful through trials, and were obedient to all God’s requests.
None of them were perfect, far from it;
but whenever they fell, they got up and began again.

There it is, what Jesus Himself says is necessary to be saved.
How much do you want to enter the kingdom of heaven?
Are you ready and willing to begin the struggle, with the help of the Holy Spirit?
May God in His mercy help us all.

......................................................................................
There's a downloadable printer-friendly version below,
​single A4 page.

In recent times I have been pondering how difficult it is to tell the true from the counterfeit; and the charism from the charisma. The truth is, that I’ve been duped many times into believing that exterior-good clothed interior-good. Even though I don’t have all the answers, maybe my musings will help you weigh up your own experiences.

We know that we aren’t alone in this quest because St Paul has gone before us, referring to counterfeit apostles who were taking fees, unlike St Paul who was either supporting himself or receiving donations from other church communities: 2 Cor 11:13-15

‘These people are counterfeit apostles, they are dishonest workmen disguised as apostles of Christ. There is nothing unexpected about that; if satan himself goes disguised as an angel of light, there is no need to be surprised when his servants, too, disguise themselves as the servants of righteousness. They will come to the end that they deserve.’

St John also has a similar warning for us: 1 John 4:1-2

‘It is not every spirit, my dear people, that you can trust; test them, to see if they come from God; there are many false prophets, now, in the world. You can tell the spirits that come from God by this: every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh is from God;’

Perhaps it is worthwhile to note that it is at the high levels that this discernment is necessary, not at the mundane levels. It stands to reason that you only bother to counterfeit the high stakes stuff.

On the charism side, Fr Jim Esler s.m., now deceased, moral theologian, had the real thing. When he taught, the impulse was strong to receive that teaching on one’s knees, as was the urge to honour him as thoroughly as possible, because he walked with God, and he left you in awe of God’s mercy and wisdom.

An experience of hearing Fr Raniero Cantalamessa live in Kibble Park evoked similar interior responses.

Then there is the charism of suffering which radiates Jesus, which St John Paul II imparted to us, and which a layman I knew had something similar. There’s an inner radiance in holy people like this, and a weightiness that evokes awe.

Encounters like this, with true examples of holiness, we treasure and never forget.

On the charisma side, being in the presence of Bob Hawke and Blanche was a clear example. They weren’t doing anything but standing still, but still attention was drawn to them as to a magnet.

Maybe we learn more from the ones it took us a while to wake up to.

In this category goes a high-ranking American prelate who came to a Sydney based, but national event. Well-spoken, with gleaming white hair, neat, energetic, and with some excellent initiatives happening in his archdiocese. It certainly looked like he walked the walk, and talked the talk, and yet the homily he gave had none of the heart impact or vista-opening impact expected. You might say there was no Holy Spirit wham behind the glam.

With him goes Scott Morrison, elected as prime minister of Australia on a winning smile, folksy charm, and the hope that God really was no.1 in his life. But as information about bullying tactics and WEF internship grew, so did our disillusionment.
In a similar bucket was Barrack Obama as U.S. president. He looked so suave, cool, and nonchalantly in control. Yet bit by bit the amount of anti-life legislation passed under his administration caused a complete re-think.

Then there was the cleric, unusually gifted with music, and with the kind of gentle dramatic flair that could bring an auditorium of people into prayerful unison. Seemingly completely transparent and trustworthy, and yet now serving time for multiple offences against minors.

To which must be added the cleric with outstanding oratorial and intellectual gifts, preaching the truth brilliantly but not seeing a harvest of converted souls because the hearers either detected a lack of love or weren’t inspired by the content to give God a greater place in their hearts.

Many years it took for the truth to come to the fore for some of these.

Why am I currently mulling this over?

It’s like this: I went down an online rabbit hole recently and read about someone being totally impressed with the livestreamed replay of a pastor’s final session at a major church conference. Apparently there were manifestations of the Holy Spirit to an unusually high degree at this event. Before I commit myself to 2 hours’ viewing, I thought, I’d better get some background on this highly-rated pastor. I didn’t like what I found. Uppermost in those red flags were a lifestyle which included a private jet, and the beginnings of a blog-post - which due to a web page loop I couldn’t click through to the full-length version of - but was more or less saying that patient acceptance of sufferings wasn’t part of what Jesus meant when He said, ‘Take up your cross and follow Me’. Yet this pastor had a mega version of a mega church.

….And I ended up with a lot of questions:
How many of these manifestations of the Holy Spirit were true and how many were counterfeit?
How is it that God can seemingly work so powerfully through a red-flagged person?
How many of those who experienced manifestations of the Holy Spirit will produce a harvest of good?
How big is the risk that we seek manifestations and spectacular works of God, and that we neglect to seek God Himself for Himself?

Since I have seen true manifestations of the Holy Spirit, I know they are real.

On the other hand, if the evil one can counterfeit an angel of light, he can counterfeit anything lesser. Sobering, isn’t it?

I’m also reasonably sure that if what He wants to do in a person’s life is urgent, then God isn’t too fussy about the level of holiness of the means, as long as the means gets the person’s heart to open sufficiently for Him to act.

What else is certain is Romans 11:29: ‘God never takes back His gifts or revokes His choice.’

Which means that true charisms can be operating in someone, albeit at a lower and more mangled level if their lives aren’t corresponding to the degree of holiness necessary to match the charism.

This is rather amazing, because a friend of mine who operated in the word of knowledge charism said that the more her soul had been cleansed by repentance and confession, the more easily this charism flowed.

So what’s the bottom line?

Firstly, that we need to take seriously the need to pray for discernment; and I daresay to pray daily.

Secondly, that whenever we come across someone who appears to be operating in a charism of a higher order than average, that we then have a duty to pray for this person.
Here’s why: If they are already good, prayers will both defend them and help them to become even more effective in God’s service. If they are not so good, and yet they are having this level of impact, imagine how immeasurably greater that impact would be if they grew in goodness. Since often we don’t know if they are at the level of goodness which God desires for them, it makes sense to not bother too much about ascertaining this situation, and to bother instead about praying for them.

Will I watch that conference session video? Probably not.
I’d prefer to spend the limited time I have on content with a better track record of holy sources. But I can’t say never, because at some point in the future God may indicate that He wants me to watch it.
​
You see, I keep circling back to the notion that if that final night conference session was of the ‘God stepped in’ order of magnitude, then people would be talking about it all over the place; they’d have an inner compulsion to share it far and wide, and as far as I can tell that hasn’t happened.

Some of you are familiar with the journalist Wayne Root. For the last few years he’s been a journalist whose work I will take time to read. From time to time I also share with those close to me the articles he has written.
 
This time he has compiled a very long list of vaccine related reports, with hundreds of links from online sites across the world, reports that haven't been making it onto mainstream news.
 
I was finding it hard to upload, and suspect others might be having the same trouble, so I've copied it onto a document and taken out all of the advertisement breaks.
 
It's still 20 x A4 pages long (downloadable file below).
 
My suggestion is that you read the first 2 to 3 pages, and then skip through the links until you find something of interest, go down that link, return, and then skip through till you find another link worth looking at in detail.
 
I did read through the nurse report Wayne recommends, and it matches with local stories I’ve heard from pharmacy assistants and from those who live near major hospitals.
 
Should you have been following the vaccine saga with interest, many of these links you will have already come across in your own research, so it makes this document useful as a reference manual.
 
It would also be worthwhile sharing with anyone who has begun to suspect that only carefully selected parts of the whole story have been released by traditional media.
 
Why am I sharing it, and why am I sharing it here?
​Because it is only by going down these links that you start to get a sense of the depth of the evil swamp that God is draining in our time, and begin to comprehend the magnitude of His work; and why it is taking so long to see our prayers answered.

During the past few weeks, I have been pondering what determines an authentic healthy relationship with God. Two particular conundrums have been highlighted in my life, Person A and Person B, although there are others, and there have been some online conundrums as well.

Person A has considerable time set apart for prayer on a daily basis; and is displaying devotional warmth and a noticeably higher level of reverence than the average. But has not been seen beginning new relationships on own initiative, and is very reserved in personal interactions, i.e.. a person of few words and minimal answers.

The question is: how authentic can this be if there is no observable deepening in relationships with others, and no observable outward focus in either service to others or in an intercessory prayer burden for others?

If you recall the galactic analogy, if you place God as the largest star in the centre, and yourself as a tiny star attracted to the centre, then in order to get closer to God you necessarily have to get closer to the other tiny stars; since the closer to the centre of the galaxy you are the more densely packed it is.

Person B has a substantial daily prayer routine with a somewhat regular touch of the supernatural happening.

The question is: how authentic can this be if there doesn’t seem to be a corresponding growth in reverence, in commitment to going the extra mile, and in outward focus on others. General impressions have a focus on ‘why me?’ and ‘what does this mean’?

At this point a personal stock take is necessary. Is there a daily committed time for prayer? Is there service in my life beyond friends and family? Is love and reverence for God growing? Is there any evidence of more patience, trust, gentleness etc than last year?

Person C has a committed prayer life with deep devotion, and a Mary of Bethany type focus in prayer. There is a degree of outward service and willingness to serve.

The question is: how authentic can this be if that outward service is usually either publicly visible, or at least visible to the priest, and people tend to tread on eggshells in this person’s presence lest they do something incurring disapproval and verbal reprimand?

Person D looks like they are walking the talk, have fingers in many service pies, are social to a point, and seem to have a regular prayer life.

The question is: how authentic can this be if you feel like purchasing a lottery ticket when they arrive for Mass on time or two lottery tickets if they are ever early?

Person E is a seminarian yet either comes to Mass just in time; or comes in for personal prayer early and doesn’t greet anyone. Then when Mass is over leaves without any eye contact; or heads off to a private chapel to pray alone rather than in common with others – unless the priest or someone relatively important makes a beeline to talk to him.

The question is: do they train them in seminaries to behave like this? How authentic can training for priesthood be if it actively discourages interaction with parishioners? Where is the balance between loving God and loving others?

Person F is usually a religious or ex-religious who is vastly superior to everyone else, and who can with ease make someone else feel like an insignificant gnat.

The question is: how authentic can a religious life be if it doesn’t possess the kind of humility that helps build others up, or at least treat others as befits their dignity as children of God?

Yet God loves them all, and is infinitely patient with them, always seeking to lead them along the path of greater authenticity of relationship with Himself.

Now for the online conundrums.

The biggest litmus test for these is, have they been written primarily for an audience of one (i.e. God)?

The first one is both insidious and commonplace. You start out reading reflections on a particular passage of scripture, or a written conversion testimony, or something that passes for a written prophetic word, or a topic relevant to living the Christian life. The content is useful and good until you get near the end. Then you get hit with a ‘buy my book’, ‘listen to my podcast’, ‘join my online mentorship group’ or similar. And you feel duped because what you’ve just read has been primarily a sales pitch.

The next one is easier to suspect from the get-go, and therefore easier to avoid. Because they usually have ‘wealth’, ‘prosperity’, ‘financial breakthrough’ or similar in the title. It normally goes something like: if you do X, Y and Z in that order, and exactly as I say, then God will give you everything you want. Some a little more sophisticated than that, but otherwise essentially the same. The truth is that there is no substitute or short cut for developing a relationship with God, and a relationship with God is the ultimate prize, compared to Him riches rank as dust.

After that come the ‘sow a seed’ websites, citing the scripture that says assistance to a prophet earns a prophet’s reward. As you might have already guessed, I have a problem with these. That’s because throughout Christian history God has called some to live trusting completely in His providence, only going out to beg on the streets when things are grim. When God’s ministers are doing good work, the natural impulse is to assist them. There is a significant difference between those who don’t have a ‘sow a seed’ or donation page, and those who do. With the former you know they are trusting in God, and writing as He directs, because there are no kick-backs in it for them. With the latter there’s an aspect of turning what God has asked you to do into an income stream. With that comes the temptation to write to attract donations instead of writing to attract God’s blessing; and the temptation to turn God’s anointing into a business.

The last type is insidious because it appeals either to our curiosity or to our need, making them difficult to resist. The former has click-bait style titles promising answers to satisfy our curiosity about heaven and hell, but which don’t lead us to greater love, awe and worship of God. Will you see your favourite pet in heaven? Did your favourite actor get to heaven? That kind of thing. The latter has click-bait style titles promising to do something God and only God can do, e.g. get the key to release everything the Holy Spirit wants to give you; conquer your demons and love with abandon; get success in petitioning the courts of heaven. That kind of thing. The most anyone of us can do on earth is to tell how God has worked wonders in our lives and in the lives of those we are close to. Frequently that sparks new wonders because those stories raise faith and expectancy in others. But no one can claim that they have a never-fail gifting from God. e.g. Some people are gifted by God with a charism of healing, and many do get healed, but it is always God who does the healing, and the gifted person cannot predict who will be healed and who won’t be.
​
Can God use powerfully the gifted people who are the catalysts for these disappointing online offerings. Yes He can. But approach them with significant caution and don’t make them your primary go-to websites. God will always speak clearer where the sources are cleaner than where the sources are muddied.

Here is the verse that was quoted so often at the Plenary Council, Gal 3:28
“And there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
 
It was quoted with an emphasis on the equality of all the baptised, with a view to implying that if all are equal, then all roles in the Church should be open to all people, including priesthood.
 
The equality of all persons before God is not in dispute, but the deduction that this means equality of roles is.
 
Firstly we need to remember that St Paul is writing this letter to the Galatians, someone who has studied the Old Testament with particular diligence and who is very familiar with the worship conducted in the Temple at Jerusalem.
 
Therefore when he talks about distinctions between Jew and Greek, male and female, he expects his audience to bring to mind that in the Temple at Jerusalem there was a court of the Gentiles which excluded those of gentile birth from entering the inner court. Also in that Temple is a court of the women which excluded them from the inner court too.
 
Slave and free likely refers to the freedom a non-slave possesses to travel to the Temple at any time. A slave however can only go to the Temple when the person who owns him/her permits it.
 
In Christ Jesus then, everyone has equal access to God the Father, everyone may approach Him in the inner court.
 
These distinctions with regard to Temple worship are man-made. Therefore they can be changed, and in Christ Jesus they are.
 
It is noteworthy that St Paul did not add ‘priest and non-priest’ to that list.
 
A priest has access to the Holy of Holies, and only a priest, by the eternal decree of God about the sons of Aaron, recorded in the Old Testament. That’s unchangeable.
 
During the history of Israel, God underlined the seriousness of that eternal degree several times.
 
The sons of Aaron were under strict obedience to fulfill what God had decreed. In Leviticus 10:1 we find that when two of Aaron’s sons took a shortcut and filled their censers with ordinary fire instead of the fire from the altar, they died immediately.
 
In 2 Sam 6:6-7 we see a Levite, who as a Levite had permission to handle and carry the holy things in prescribed manner, reach out with his hand to touch the ark of the covenant when it seemed unsteady. He died immediately because he had not touched the ark in the prescribed manner.
 
But the really big story is in Numbers 16. Here we have a group of Levites and a few non-Levites complaining that since the whole community is consecrated to God why do Moses and Aaron have extra special roles and not others? This is exactly the same argument those working towards a pathway to the priestly ordination of women were using at the Plenary Council.
 
The complainers in Numbers 16 asked, ‘The whole community and all its members are consecrated, and the Lord God lives among them. Why set yourselves higher than the community of the Lord God?’
 
Moses answered them, ‘the Lord God will reveal who is His, who is the consecrated man that He will allow to come near Him. The one He allows to come near is the one He has chosen.’
 
In effect, this is God’s choice, not ours, and this depends on God’s permission, not ours.
 
As the Letter to the Hebrews reminds us in Heb 5:4, ‘No one takes this honour on himself, but each one is called by God, as Aaron was.’.
 
As emphasis, fire came down from heaven to consume the complainers who wanted to assume the priesthood, and the earth opened up and swallowed their tents and families alive.
 
No one in Israel tried that argument again!
 
You may retort, but the 12 apostles of Jesus weren’t priests or levites. Shocking isn’t it?! Theirs is a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek not according to the order of Aaron. Melchizedek was chosen directly by God, around the time of Abraham, and in this different non-temple order of priesthood Melchizedek offered to God bread and wine. Even more shocking, the order of Melchizedek isn’t a hereditary priesthood.
 
This is God’s direct choice, His calling, which needs to be both responded to and discerned.
 
Remember, this about God’s own decrees, not about the kind of human laws that can change from time to time.
 
When the Church confirms that she has no authority to ordain women, that’s what the Church means, ie. that this particular authority is reserved to God alone, with Whom there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow of a change. James 1:17
 
It’s one of those things that you can accept, or reject, but which you can’t change.
 
So although each of us has equal dignity before God, and everyone has access to His Heart, we do have different roles given by Him.
 
As a cautionary tale, lest anyone think those roles are interchangeable, have a look at 1 Maccabees 5. The desecrated Temple has finally been cleaned and purified, and the temple sacrifices have resumed. Much effort, much prayer and many battles made that possible. Now the threats to Israel have multiplied. Because there are threats in both Galilee and Gilead the warriors in Israel form into two groups to go and meet those challenges. But the Temple they have all fought so hard for, it needs protecting too. So a priest and a community leader were placed in charge of the remnant in Jerusalem, of the people, levites and of the remaining warriors left behind. These were placed under obedience to guard the temple and to not go and fight the enemy until the other two groups of warriors returned. However the desire for military glory tempted them, they left their post at the temple, went out against the enemy, and got completely slaughtered.
 
The role of warrior was important. The role of guarding the temple was important. Both were needed. When those with the role of guard wanted to take on the role of warrior, disaster followed.
 
Heed this, please! It is God’s choice alone who is to undertake the role of priest. If that is not the role God has given to you, then do not set your heart upon it. Only disaster will result if you insist on a role that God has not given to you.
 
If we were not so scripturally illiterate and not so lacking in reverence towards the Lord God, we would see how groundless the push for the priestly ordination of women really is.
 
May God help us in His mercy, lest we perish at the frown of His face. Amen.

The second and final assembly of the 5th Plenary Council of Australia has now ended. Since the last blog-post I have watched the closing Mass for the evangelisation of the peoples, the plenary tracker episode from 8 July, as well as some religious blogs from 8 July and 9 July, both press briefings from 8 July and 9 July, and I have read through the results of voting from 8 July.
 
May God grant me the grace to deal with all of it without missing anything significant.
 
Even though the prevailing mood from the plenary council members is optimistic, relaxed, and weary or ‘relieved, emotional, and exhausted’ I find myself wondering whether everyone shares that view. Just because all those who appeared on plenary tracker or the media briefings feel this way, it is by no means certain that everyone feels this way. From a few things viewed on Twitter this morning, I dare to hope.
 
Our bishops have now gone down to somewhere at Mittagong to spend three days together, presumably talking, relaxing, and processing the pressure cooker events of the last week. This mirrors what has now become a mandatory highlight of Australian contingents to World Youth Day: they get together for three days to let what has just happened sink in, to talk and discuss with others who had similar experiences, before they disperse to return to real life. I’d give a lot to be a fly on the Mittagong wall because I suspect these three days will contain a lot of collective soul searching.
 
At least the press briefings have now all been put up on YouTube, that’s a win; and they are all worth taking the time to view.
 
However I did wonder whether I’d stepped into an alternate universe when a comparatively younger male member said, ‘there’s a lot of good youth ministry happening in all areas of our Catholic Church’. If by good you mean occasional very showy large gatherings of youngsters, maybe, but there’s no evidence that these extravaganzas lead to the kind of conversion which helps youngsters commit to prayer, to Sunday Mass, to regular Confession, and to the rejection of participation in pre-marital sexual activity. Does the youth ministry as experienced as lots of pizza, ice-breaking games, fund raising for big youth events, and the occasional challenging talk actually minister to young people? It’s really good for youngster-sitting; but for actually ministering to them a la Everett Fritz? No. There’s normally something worthwhile with youth happening in close proximity to cathedrals, but anywhere else it is hit and miss, and out in the boondocks it is miss.
 
Lots of members have gushed about the morning prayer experiences during the second assembly. Yes, there was a cut down version of the litany of Saints, and the Benedictus got prayed once as did the Hail Mary, and there was a smattering of scripture, but there was a lot of dodgy stuff too. At times I had to force myself to continue watching online. When I came across a member on Twitter this morning to admitted that he walked out while the pagan-esque rituals were going on, (especially planting seeds in mulch) and returned when they were over, I was greatly relieved. How much better it would have been if they had prayed Morning Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours together, in both Latin and Eastern rites!!!
 
A tale is told from time to time about a long-term family friend born 1930, who, when told that there was to be a second Vatican Council put his head in his hands and wept. As a student of church history, he knew that international Church Councils disrupt the mission of the Church for at least 50 years. At the time he was doing his best as an evangelist and apologist on a soapbox in The Domain.
 
Deeply I felt in charity with him when a motion was approved to force all Australian dioceses and eparchies to have a diocesan synod within 5 years’ time. Haven’t we done enough navel gazing during Vatican II and the 5th Australian Plenary Council? Isn’t it time for mission?
 
10 years ago, a synod was held in Broken Bay diocese. Us pew-sitters were invited to answer a few questions on a sheet of paper. There our involvement ceased. After meetings upon meetings of ‘movers and shakers’ the Synod was held, and a memorial website set up. Long gone is the website and if any positive outcomes came from the Synod, apart from enhanced relationships between the ‘movers and shakers’, they were not perceived by me. When the Plenary Council was first announced, reflecting upon that synod, I wondered, ‘How could a national version of the same, even if called a Plenary Council, not ultimately be a similar waste of time, talent and money? Any time dedicated to synod preparation, national or diocesan, is time that won’t be dedicated to evangelisation or to the needy.
 
Some motions had 40+ No votes. Now that’s really significant opposition! Yet the motions were still approved. Given that normally consensus was extraordinarily high for the two last days of voting, shouldn’t these large No votes have given the steering committee pause? Maybe two thirds majority was too low a bar, and it should have been higher, like 80% or 90%. Any motion with 40+ No votes is going to have big trouble at the implementation stage.
 
Generally the mood of last night’s press briefing 8 July was that the new deliberation process went well. But comparing where I expected the bishops to stick up for church teaching, the missing backbone, and the actual votes, I have to wonder whether the new process introduced quite a lot of peer pressure and therefore dissenting voices were discouraged from speaking - just by gazing across the sea of green straw polls and feeling alone. Perhaps it would have been better to have an ‘as long as it takes’ plenary council instead of the pressure of a time limit?
 
Further reflection has me wondering three things:
 
Firstly, the open mike nature of the deliberations of the last two days of the assembly suited the bold and the articulate. It couldn’t have possibly suited the introverts and those with hearing aids. This would have skewed the deliberations of the assembly. Surely deliberations need to be from both oral and written sources so that the playing field is levelled somewhat.
 
Secondly, the votes seemed to happen very soon after the deliberations finished. There was no cooling off period. No time to mull over all the input in the quiet of a private bedroom and weigh everything up more soberly.
 
Thirdly, how many of the votes were made not according to rational judgement but according to emotion viz, why should I keep to the vote I had intended to make if it seems everyone else has the opposite view? How many deliberative votes were swayed due to fear of hostility from the rest of the room, and from fear of the general public’s reactions?
 
Even juries are sent away to deliberate after closing arguments are made; they don’t vote in the court room immediately after closing arguments have been presented.
 
I’ve been thinking deeply about this because in a rational world the bishops would have voted against inclusive language in liturgy. Surely they have a reverence for sacred scripture which is peppered throughout the prayers? Surely they cannot have forgotten all the work that went into the re-translation of the Novus Ordo a few years ago, and all of the discomfort church goers went through in the adjustment process. In a rational world they’d run a million miles away from going through another revision process so soon. We’ve all laid out so much money on new missals and lectionaries – and they said Yes to doing it again? So many of our favourite hymns have already been ruined with inclusive language revisions.
 
I put it to you this way: The re-translation of the Novus Ordo has returned a sense of sacred and repentance to the liturgy. Who wants to wreck that? The good spirit or the evil spirits?
 
We were treated to some examples of what would become commonplace with inclusive language: There was universal use of ‘sisters and brothers’; must we never use ‘brothers and sisters’ again?
 
More concerning was the replacement of ‘priest, prophet and king’ with ‘priest, prophet and royal’. Between the concepts of king and royal is a vast chasm. There can only be one king at a court, with responsibility for the welfare of all. At a court are many royals, in various near and far family relationships to the king. Far from minor is this replacement because the triple title is sourced deep in sacred scripture and is the triple role of Jesus we are baptised into. To use ‘royal’ is to distort the truth.
 
Let’s remember again, who is it who is the Father of all truth distortions?
 
As commentators have said, maybe our bishops decided to let this one on inclusive language go through to the keeper, and let ICEL and Rome get the flack for saying No.
 
This isn’t the only motion where fear of God should have outweighed fear of man, or fear of woman eg lay preaching at Mass.
 
I also note that part 9 about implementation had nothing about prioritizing which parts to take precedence. Even a multi-choice online poll of members’ views would have been useful and instructive. Clearly it all can’t be implemented at once. Some needs to be in the urgent bucket, some needs to be in the important bucket, and some will end up in the if-we-get-to-it bucket.
 
Comment was made to me that knowing people were so emotional about the many issues up for deliberation, that in the beginning there should have been a time of naming, sharing and releasing hurts and working through reconciliation opportunities before entering into the plenary council process. I whole heartedly agree.
 
It also befuddles me that having experienced the plenary tracker interplay from the first assembly that the head instigators were not put on notice and told that bad behaviour (ie. non-conducive to collaboration) would not be tolerated.
 
As I’ve mentioned before, entering into a plenary council process in a combative mode rather than in a collaborative mode is profoundly insulting to those doing their best to be collaborative.
 
Therefore I return to the 2 types of people on earth :10 commandments vs 2 commandments people, viz 1. nobody tells me what to do; 2. I don’t give a stuff about anyone else. There’s a very big difference between those who sing ‘we did it God’s way’ vs those who sing ‘I did it my way’. Were we seeing a corporate expression of those 2 commandments viz 1. we want these particular topics to go our way (women, governance, inclusion, LGBTQIA+) and 2. really don’t give too much of a stuff about how we obtain those results – as long as we get them - nor about any topics other than these? Deeply concerning it is. Yet I understand only too well how easy it is to get carried away by seemingly righteous anger and passion for apparent injustice, and not realise that a lack of sufficient detachment has permitted darker forces to play unseen puppeteer with your emotions.
 
I further wonder why, when it became apparent that those in a combative mode were not being collaborative, and in fact were implacably combative, that the leadership did not remove them from the assembly. Granted, they may have kicked up more of a stink outside than inside, but maybe it would have been better to put up with nasty public scenes than to have had the plenary council hijacked by their implacability. Because it was hijacked. Those who screamed loudest got their way, and those who should have had more parental concern for the whole let them. When a young child reaches the age of being able to have tantrums, giving them what they want in order to shut them up just makes a precedent for a higher stake outcomes later down the track. The only way to prevent that is a short sharp smack and some time on the naughty bench.
 
To understand why this is crucial, here’s a crash course in Discernment 101. Usually we have two choices before us, and usually we have a strong preference for one of them. This is particularly so when seeking God’s will for our life vocation; marriage or one of the total commitments requiring celibacy. Until we can come to the point, through prayer, study, reflection and discussion of saying, ‘God, both choices are good, yes I admit I have a preference for one of them, but I am prepared to wholeheartedly embrace Your choice for me, no matter which one it is, because it is Your choice, and I wish to please You, and I acknowledge that Your choice will bring me the greatest happiness.’ Only then can the Holy Spirit move us in His direction. Only then can we know that we are following God’s will and not our own. Can you now see that if you come to a discernment process unwilling to relinquish your own strong preferences, that you block the discernment process?
 
We seem to have only dealt with the push button issues for the progressives at the plenary council. That’s sad. Because it has been dangerously inward looking- and failed to do much at all to support evangelisation. If you asked someone in the pews what was urgent for the church my guess is that better homily preaching would be number one. It didn’t feature at all in the plenary council. Neither was there anything to do with how laity could better live out the twin calls of holiness and mission in their daily lives at work, play and home. There was nothing about how to be more open to the Holy Spirit; nothing about ways of facilitating encounters with Jesus, nothing to inspire those living in vocations to marriage and family.
 
A ray of joy is that ‘Eparchy’, is now being mentioned in Australian Church matters as often as diocese is.
 
Across social media, whenever the comment function wasn’t turned off, there were consistent questions: How did my bishop vote? How much did this whole Plenary Council process cost? Where’s the money coming from to fund the new things proposed by the Plenary Council?
 
In the vast wish-list of the Plenary Council, did everyone forget just how many dioceses are already in financial crisis?
 
At times members, steering committee and drafting committee struggled under the constraints required by Canon Law for a Plenary Council.
 
The wisdom from members of religious orders was a gift to the Plenary Council. Their experiences of collective decision making, the good, the bad, and the ugly, reassured everyone else that what they were experiencing in the Plenary Council was not abnormal. When religious meet in chapter, the process is normally 4 to 6 weeks long, and is recognised by congregational leaders that the decision to put something to the vote only happens when a sense of consensus is reached.
 
Synodality is hard work, and it is a difficult process. Any kind of deep listening and having long cherished preconceived notions challenged generally is.
 
Some of the wording of Plenary Council motions was imprecise. As some members and commentators asked, who is going to decide what is appropriate and what is not appropriate eg.
‘that women are appropriately represented in decision-making structures’
‘with appropriate formation and recognition’
 
If you take the view that the whole plenary council process was tied to an agenda full of woke ideas, or at least politically correct ideas, then are we running the risk of ‘Go woke, go broke’ and of grave damage to the Australian Church - since God has an eternal perspective, and we only have the prevailing perspectives of this era of society?
 
One of the younger panel members on the plenary tracker about integral ecology was very enthusiastic and therefore persuasive. Her contribution has continued to niggle at me. If you took away the audio and just looked at the visual, I think you’d be convinced that this was a new convert to something. Problematically that something was not Jesus. So amazing is the Good News that we should be excited about Jesus; and have very little else on our lips. We should beware whenever something less that Jesus takes up our minds and hearts.
 
Given the number of new research assignments, new roundtables for accountability and resource sharing, and other things that will require staffing – how is it all going to be paid for, given that most parishes are already under heavy obligations for insurance and contributions to diocese? Existing obligations are already crippling. Will the obligation get heavier, or will something that is working get cut for something untested, or both?
 
The plenary tracker episode of 8 July had a fair amount of discussion about whether the Plenary Council has been a watershed moment in the life of the church in Australia, or whether it was just another small step on an incremental path. It also answered a question: The two thirds majority for voting approval was based on the number of eligible voters; so abstentions, which happened, did make getting to two-thirds a little harder. For all the talk about women deacons, any discussion about the experiences and role of married deacons and their wives was conspicuously missing.
 
Discernment isn’t always yes and no, sometimes, legitimately, it is ‘we’re not quite there yet’.
 
One of the press briefing panelists had an interesting view. With the motion to settle outstanding motions from the 4th Plenary Council, it means that we’ve just had a change of era. The era of the 4th plenary council is now over, and the era of the 5th plenary council is beginning.
 
When asked about the notable lack of emphasis on interior conversion during the Plenary Council, Archbishop Costelloe said that the Year of Grace in 2012 which preceded the Plenary Council was thought to have already done that.
 
He also expressed a hope that everyday meetings in parish and diocesan life will now have more of a focus on ‘what is God asking of us at this moment’ than heading straight into normal procedural and practical matters.
 
The Implementation timeline goes like this: all of the documentation from both assemblies will be packaged up over the next few months, it is likely that the November assembly of the bishops’ conference will accept it as a true record, then it will be sent to Rome. Then we wait for Rome’s response, because anything implemented has to be in communion with the church universal. The implementation phase will only begin on motions that have the green light from Rome. ‘Jumping the gun’ on implementation risks wasted efforts. Possibly the earliest the response from Rome will be received is May 2023.
 
There was adoration going on in the crypt area of St Mary’s cathedral during the Plenary Council, and many members availed themselves of that opportunity especially during lunch time.
 
Closing Mass 9 July 2022 excerpts from Archbishop Timothy Costelloe’s homily.
 
There can be no true renewal if we ourselves, perversely, push Christ to the margins.
Our task is to point beyond ourselves to Jesus.
Pentecost is the deep reality of the Church.
Salvation ultimately depends on preachers being sent.
We are not to be concerned with self-preservation but with proclaiming the truth and beauty of the Gospel by what we say and what we do.
The commission to go out and make disciples was not withheld from those whose faith was weak and faltering and caused them to hesitate.
We have experienced this week what it means to struggle with the reality of the call of the Gospel and recognise that the struggle must continue.
There is more to discover about where the Holy Spirit seeks to lead us.
We are sent as witnesses to the love and mercy of God.
The Lord never promised that discipleship would be without its challenges.
What He did promise was that He would be with us always.
 
How to conclude? It is going to take time to discern what has been of God and what hasn’t been of God in the Plenary Council. Unpalatable truth though that be. Currently all we have seen is general euphoria. In reality, this has been the easy part. Now begins, when Rome gives the green light, the task of putting it into practice and discovering which parts work and are accepted, and which parts don’t work and aren’t accepted, by pew-dwellers and bishops, and everyone in between. My gut feel is that the consensus reached on the floor of the second assembly is far from being a consensus throughout parishes, dioceses and eparchies. May God have His way. 

...................................................
​Below is a printer-friendly compilation of all the blog-posts concerning the Second Assembly of the Plenary Council.
20 x A4 pages

The second and final assembly of the 5th Plenary Council of Australia is now at its last full day of deliberations, with many contentious issues still at large. Since the last blog-post I have watched the Mass for the Memorial of Blessed Peter To Rot from last night, and the votive Mass this morning in honour of Mary, mother of the Church, and the Plenary tracker episode from last night, as well as some religious blogs from 7 July and 8 July, the press briefing from last night, and the livestreamed morning session. I have viewed the revised draft for motion 4 on women, and I looked at the voting outcomes released yesterday. I have not yet gone looking for any voting results released today.
 
I was pleasantly surprised at the revision of motion 4. There was nothing in it which raised my hackles. Certainly it is a much better motion than the one presented to the assembly on Tuesday.
 
Daniel Ang’s input released 6 July and Sandy Wallace’s input released today have caused me to look deeper at the disconnect between what’s been going on in the Plenary Council Masses in the Cathedral and what’s been going on in the Plenary Council from a plenary tracker perspective – for lack of a better descriptor.
 
Last night’s plenary tracker portrayed a bubble of reality that was quite alien to me. How come there is such enthusiasm about ecological conversion? Could it be that it’s because ‘Repent, for the kingdom of God is close at hand’ is far more demanding? I doubt that the name of Jesus was mentioned more than once at last night’s plenary tracker. That really bothers me. The way I heard the panel of women enthuse was uncomfortably like having an alternate religion proposed. Perhaps the troubling thing was a placement of the human person as a cog within the ecosystem of creation – which is very different to God’s command, ‘Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth’. It was couched in either/or terms, not in both/and terms, and that is very troubling.
 
But when I look at the number of federal votes for the Greens party and for teal candidates, perhaps I should not be surprised at this green-washing of the life of the Church in Australia.
 
I keep returning to the notion that if plenary members were more steeped in scripture, in theology, in living the liturgical year, and in frequent and regular use of the sacrament of penance then so many hot button issues would have had minimal support. Daniel’s observation of the tale of two councils is ringing true. How can lives more infected with worldliness than with apostolic levels of conversion truly discern? Strangely, I’m now finding myself in sympathy with the previous way of conducting plenary councils – bishops only – because at least they are all coming together with a strong baseline of shared knowledge and practice.
 
Deeply I fear that the members got it wrong yesterday. Two topics stick in my craw. The first one was making diocesan pastoral councils mandatory for all dioceses, and the second one was signing up all dioceses, parishes, schools, hospitals etc to the Laudato Si program and demanding that it happen by 2024.
 
My experience of any kind of committee is that ineffective chairmanship is rampant and that effective chairmanship is rare. Chairpersonship was just too much of a mouthful to consider using. Very few parish councils ever accomplish anything worthwhile. Witness the number of parish council members who haven’t read the minutes of the last meeting prior to the current meeting. Witness how many accountabilities are treated as suggestions subject to a better offer rather than ‘serving as if it was done at God’s orders’. Now if instead there had been a motion to invest in widespread training for effective chairmanship – that would be useful. Let’s also refresh our memories that if a parish priest doesn’t want a parish council and if a bishop doesn’t want a diocesan pastoral council, all efforts are doomed to failure. Recall also that it is usually volunteers that are sought for pastoral council positions and that very little effort is usually expended to make sure that there’s a variety of gifts among members so that it’s not top heavy with dreamers and deficient in doers.
 
Where or where do you think the limited resources of a parish are going to go if implementing the Laudato Si program has to happen by 2024? How much will be left over for the primary mission of the Church: making disciples of Jesus? Matt 28: 18-20
 
And so much for not making decisions without the input of stakeholders! According to the approved motion all parishes have to do this, and parishes certainly weren’t consulted about the Laudato Si mandate. That’s a very different thing to a bishop saying Yes, we will start a few pilot programmes in interested parishes and see how it goes before extending it further.
 
Were you gobsmacked that one of the ecology motions was unanimous among bishops? I was. Maybe they were tired and didn’t fully comprehend the implications of the Yes vote to that motion.
 
Generally there has been a relatively consistent voting pattern from the bishops with an average of 30 Yes votes and 10 No votes. Only God knows if it has been the same bishops in each voting bucket or whether it has been more fluid. But there was a strange thing happening with motions 7.4 and 7.5 where the No vote was significant and the motions barely passed. That lack of unanimity should have sent both motions 7.4 and 7.5 back to the drawing board, time pressure or no time pressure.
 
The media briefing was again instructive, answering three important questions.
 
The first was about the general content of the Rome response to the Light from the Southern Cross document, viz too horizontal and not balanced enough with vertical and a reminder that the Church decision making is very different to the ways businesses and governments do things. The same criticism could be levelled at the plenary council process, yes?
 
The second was about the risk, due to new research groups, diocesan pastoral councils, and this new three yearly roundtable, of too much new bureaucracy in an already swamped experience of meetings upon meetings upon meetings (Here’s looking at you Bishop Umbers). Since if you are tied up in meetings all the time, a pastor or bishop has nothing left in the tank to do pastoral visits to families or to be supportive to a struggling priest. The answer given was that the risk of increasing bureaucracy is always present, and it is the price paid for the chance of some of these new meeting types to actually assist in moving the mission of the Church forward. To which I want to respond, surely there must be other long-shot ventures with more chance of success that we could invest our time, energy and scarce resources in!
 
The third was a response to the general deflation experienced when reading the framework for motions for the first time, viz after all these years couldn’t we have come up with something less bland, less general and more specific? The answer was that since implementation will be across very different circumstances, city, regional, rural, remote, that anything one-size-fits-all doesn’t provide enough wiggle room to implement motions creatively according to specific diocesan situations. Additionally members had come to acceptance about the need to have less prescriptive motions.
 
This morning Bishop Bird widened our concept of Mary as mother of the Church, because we think too readily that church means only the rite we celebrate liturgy with. So Bishop Bird took us through the richness of liturgical prayers in the Latin rite, the Maronite rite, the Chaldean rite, the Melkite rite, the Ukrainian rite and the Syro-Malabar rite. Sincere apologies if I missed any Eastern rite out. The love of Mary as mother and model is deep throughout dioceses as evinced by the numbers of parishes with Marian names, and throughout all the liturgical rites of the Church.
 
Last night at Mass there was an incredibly bad use of inclusive language in the responsorial psalm, Psalm 33(34). This is the accepted translation: ‘This poor man called; the Lord heard him and rescued him from all his distress’ – which was on screen. The translation used: ‘When the poor cry out the Lord hears and rescues them from all their distress’ – which was sung. Any student of language knows that there is a vast difference between singular and plural eg. est and sunt. The former encourages the individual to seek the Lord’s help. The latter could be interpreted that God only hears when a group of poor call out to Him, and that being united in prayer is a prerequisite for the prayers being answered. These are vastly different interpretations caused by inclusive language that the literal Hebrew translation cannot support. Shouldn’t our fidelity to what the original text of God’s Word says take priority over any ideological overlay?
 
A bright point on Thursday morning was the presentation of a message stick from the Kimberley region of Western Australia, and the explanation of the symbolism of each part of it. Both the forethought to prepare such a gift and visible token of solidarity and the deep understanding of the plenary council process it portrayed were amazing.
 
Similarly amazing was the explanation by Erica of how much the smoking ceremony meant to her, and why, viz (paraphrased) ‘together we acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora nation who have welcomed us so warmly with the smoking ceremony when we gathered together to begin this meeting on their country. That smoke made me feel safe. It gave me courage and it encouraged me to take part in sharing, especially sharing about our first nations culture’.
 
Last night Cardinal Dew from Wellington, New Zealand was the homilist at Mass. He has been one of the official observers, and he is adamant that he hasn’t been bored during his observation of the plenary council process. Among his many observations two stood out: increase in faith of the community, increase in communion of the community: and that increase in mission of the community is the responsibility borne by each baptised person: discernment is integral to synodality.
 
When I looked at the plenary council website a little while ago, the results of the voting from today’s deliberations were not yet published.
 
Stay tuned for a response to that, and to the Mass tomorrow morning, and the wrap up press briefings and plenary tracker episode – although it is likely to be Sunday before that response can be completed.