Just about everyone who believes in God has been praying about a close-to-the-heart matter for a long time. Whether it be for the healing of a loved one, the conversion of a loved one, the conversion of a leader, for the gift of a child, for the gift of a spouse, for the gift of employment, for revival in a locality or in a worshipping community, asking for an answer to whether a deceased loved one made it to heaven or not, for funds to enable a special project, for reconciliation between loved ones, for the release of a loved one from addiction or from a gang, asking for ‘what is my vocation?’ answers from God – we’ve all got at least one of these.

Some people receive from God very quickly, and the rest of us struggle to quieten the envy that arises in our hearts. We are happy for them, but at the same time our hearts feel shattered because our hearts feel that God has overlooked us, or that we weren’t worthy enough, and we wonder ‘what have we done wrong’?

Somewhere in our minds we know that God’s answers are always good, and that they are either Yes, Not Yet, or I’ve Got Something Better For You. But our hearts feel the pain of the delay, and it is an ongoing battle to have faith and not let doubt take over. We feel the weariness of that battle when we’ve been praying night and day for 4 years, 7 years, 12 years, 20 years. Add to that the mockery of those who infer, ‘You’re still praying for that!, Get over it, get a life’.

At times we console ourselves with the notion that there is a truth to the longer the delay the bigger and better the answer. We cling onto the answer St Monica received after 20 years of praying for her wayward son Augustine. Not only did he get converted from error, he became a priest; not only did he become a priest, he became a bishop; not only did he become a bishop, he became a saint; not only did he become a saint, but he is recognised as a doctor of the Church, and his writings appear more frequently than any others in the Office of Readings. St Monica didn’t see much of this happen on earth except his conversion, but her prayers paved the way for the rest.

We have moments of hope, faith and trust, but the battle to persevere and to keep our hearts soft and thankful towards God keeps on going.

Is there any good news? Yes, there is.
God has an observable modus operandi when it comes to long term prayers.

There are three patterns.

The first pattern is the long-term prayer followed by the suddenly. We see this in Anna the daughter of Phanuel. She had been praying for several decades that the Messiah would come, and then suddenly she is given an opportunity to hold Him in her arms. In the Gospel we see several healings take on that pattern, with long periods of illness and prayer for healing, like the woman with the haemorrhage, then sudden and complete healing through Jesus.

The second pattern is long term prayer followed by a promise followed by more long-term prayer and then a specific promise linked to a specific date. We see this in Simeon. He had prayed so much for the coming of the Messiah that God gave him a promise that he would see the Messiah with his own eyes before he died. He kept praying, strengthened by that promise, until the prompting of the Holy Spirit said something like, ‘Get to the Temple, Now!’. We also see this in Abraham and Sarah who were childless and had long prayed for a child, then God gave them a promise that they indeed would have a child, then more long years of praying and waiting occurred until God said, this time next year you will hold your child in your arms.

The third pattern is long term prayer until a holy person comes along, and not-knowing gives way to holy expectation. We see this in Hannah the mother of Samuel. She had long term prayers but after Eli’s blessing she went home happy, convinced that God had heard and answered. We see it with Elizabeth and Zechariah, parents of John the Baptist. They had long term prayers for a child, but it was only after the visitation of the angel to Zechariah that they knew God’s answer was coming.

I’ve experienced the second pattern and the third pattern in my own life.

What do these examples teach us? That God answers long-term prayers in specific, personal and unmistakable ways. God honours the perseverance of His sons and daughters in specific, personal and unmistakable ways. He doesn’t give nebulous answers to long term hopes.

That means that the array of prophetic words that say 'your breakthrough is coming', 'your long-term prayers are being answered' are just stating a universal truth and not actually promising anything. The answers to our long-term prayers are always on the way. What our hearts long for is a bankable answer to When.

Those kinds of prophetic words are rather easy to release because they are non-specific, and no one really knows if it was directly for them or not. They also tend to be crowd pleasing words because everyone wants to know that their time of waiting is over. But they also tend to be faith-destroyers and send people on hope-deferred spirals.

Let me explain how that happens. A non-specific word is given, and because they are words we long to hear specifically addressed to ourselves, we let hope spring up. Then a few weeks elapse and absolutely nothing in our situation has changed. That little spring of hope deflates and we enter the hope-deferred no man’s land again, kicking ourselves that we gave in to false hope yet again. When this happens often enough, we begin to stop believing in God’s goodness and become convinced that God is cruel. When that spiral happens often enough, we either delete that prophet’s social media posts from our scrolling or we change churches, because we just can’t go through that particular agony again.

What a difference it would make if the various people receiving this kernel of a prophetic word from God would diligently seek Him for specifics! It is similar to the change in faith dynamic between a leader saying, ‘God wants to heal people tonight’ compared to ‘God wants to heal people with hearing issues tonight’. The latter gives specific form to faith expectations, and consequently the faith level increases. Consider the difference between ‘I declare you (plural) are going to receive breakthrough today’ and ‘I declare that there is a special grace here today to heal those who have been in chronic pain for over a year’. It is far easier for someone to say, ‘hey that’s me, yes please God’ to the latter than to the former, it is also far easier with the latter for those who say, ‘hey that’s not me’, to happily pray for those whose day of grace it is.
​
We do the character of God a grave injustice if we release the beginning of His communication and not the fullness of it. Frequently Jesus used the rabbinic method in the Gospels, He set a topic and waited for people to ask questions; or someone asked Him a question, He responded with a clarifying question, and the answer given by the questioner gave scope to the ultimate answer of Jesus. We know that Jesus was deeply grieved when He privately gave the apostles teaching about His suffering and death and they refused to question Him to gain deeper understanding.

A few weeks ago a priest involved in campus ministry proclaimed over social media that something should be done about 85% of church goers never having asked a young adult ‘the vocation question’. Therefore he decided, every time he saw a young chap in the chapel or at Mass he was going to ask them the ‘have you thought about being a priest’ question. A quicker way to empty your campus ministry of male participants is hard to imagine. Let me explain why asking this question of any young man with a pulse is a very bad idea.

Firstly, it is God’s call and His choice alone, who He calls and when He calls them. Our task is to notice when that call has been made, and then to support and encourage it. One hundred busybodies asking ‘Have you thought about being a priest?’ does not equal even a tiddle of a call from God Himself -even if they happen to be priestly busybodies.

As a parent of a young man who has often been the only young man present at church, I know the harm such questions cause. Both ‘the wrong question at the wrong time’ and ‘the right question at the wrong time’ actually make hearing what God is saying harder, not easier. The oceans of unnecessary soul searching they cause is reprehensible.

Consider that the way God deals with a soul that He is calling to a priestly vocation is very similar to a young man wooing a young woman. He is never ever going to ‘pop the question’ until He is very sure the answer is going to be a Yes from the heart of his intended. Usually this wooing is very delicate and very slow and needs privacy. Having someone pre-empt God’s question is like a rookie cop fouling up a very long and sensitive federal investigation. Did you read the stories that came through during lockdown about the lack of visitors at the zoo helping the pandas to achieve successful courtships? It is something to remember when you are trying to foster vocations of all kinds.

Secondly, the only person who has the right to ask the vocation question is someone who has taken the time to know the young person well; to know his or her likes and dislikes; to see how the young person conducts relationships, to assess gifts and talents, and who can consequently answer these questions:

Can they sing? A dear friend, now deceased, was adamant about this being crucially important. It is rather difficult to help lead others in worship if you can’t sing. A priest needs to intone the beginning of many sung liturgical prayers. Will we mention the archbishop who grimaces each time he has to intone the Gloria? Perhaps not. Even a parent needs to be able to sing nursery rhymes and to initiate sing-a-longs on long road trips. Big liturgical occasions need a deacon who can sing the Gospel.

Are they capable of tertiary study? This is particularly pertinent to priestly and religious vocations. Priestly studies go for around 7 years with lots of exams. But even religious are required to do extensive study on the founder of the order, the charisms of the order, the rule, and how to live out poverty, chastity and obedience.

Do they work well in a team? This capacity is essential for a well-functioning parish. It is essential for religious life. It is essential for the husband-wife relationship.

Do they have the capacity to listen? Without this capacity penitents are going to find going to confession very difficult. Without this capacity any kind of pastoral care is going to fail. Without this capacity your spouse will not feel loved. Without this capacity a troubled religious will have trouble confiding in a religious superior.

Do they have the capacity for self-sacrifice? All vocations need this capacity. When a priest gets a hospital call in the middle of the night he needs this capacity. It is the essence of a religious vocation. Parents too have regular opportunities for self-sacrifice in changing nappies, midnight feeds, when youngsters are ill, when budgets are tight.

Do they regularly have an outlet for serving others? Have they become good at it? Have they begun to find joy in it? Serving others is a regular part of priestly, religious and family life. Any inability to serve is going to cause great difficulties.

When they speak, do others listen, and do others follow? A latent capacity for leadership is essential for a priestly vocation. But even a religious often has to rally volunteers for a project, and a parent often has to rally unwilling offspring for chores.

Do they have sufficient people skills? Being able to engage parishioners in small talk after Mass is obvious. But being able to work the room at a social function so that everyone receives attention and no one misses out is less obvious and more important. It is also what distinguishes the great hosts and hostesses from the mediocre ones- at family celebrations, at retreat weekends, and at any event where newcomers may be present.

Can they admit when they have made mistakes? The inability to admit mistakes sours relationships. In times past regular public confession of faults was part of religious life. The ability to say, ‘I stuffed up, I’m sorry’ is also a regular part of a healthy marriage. Consider the case where a lay person has opened up the church for Mass, and set everything up, and is ready to go home on a Saturday morning and the priest says as the person is leaving, ‘there’s an adult getting baptised in 30 minutes time, I need you to stick around for it’. No apology for abusing their goodness. No apology for not communicating the need a few days earlier so that the lay person had a chance to either re-arrange their lives or suggest alternative helpers. Such behaviour may have got the baptism running smoothly, but it has set the private needs of the lay person at zero and has set up resentment in the lay person. Instead of a loyal helper the priest now has a ‘do the bare minimum’ helper. Short term gain, long term loss.

Are they free of addictions? This is considerably important. Sadly I have seen far too many vocations, especially priestly vocations undone by an addiction from early in their lives coming back to bite them 20 years or so after ordination, and that includes alcohol, and chasing the company of women as well as gambling and the nastier things. Addictions of any kind also wreck family life because it builds up a pattern of hiding and deceit, and for family life to thrive requires trust and honesty and wholesomeness.

Are they reliable? Can you rely on them to show up in sufficient time to do a rostered task? If you ask them to do something, do you have confidence that they will get it done? Do they keep their promises and their commitments? In days gone by this wasn’t such an issue, but with the advent of ‘yes, subject to a better offer’ and ‘yes, unless someone changes my mind in the meantime’ it has really become an issue. To someone who is reliable you can give more weighty tasks than to someone who is less reliable. Having seen the havoc caused by clerics who change their minds about an issue every time a new person speaks to them about that issue, I know that no one wants to experience that. Neither does anyone want the Christmas Mass roster changed several times in the hours prior to the first Christmas Eve Mass. Choosing a course and sticking with it enables others to trust your word and your ministry.

Do they have some resistance to peer pressure? All of us are susceptible to peer pressure and propaganda to some degree. Being somewhat resistant to it enables you to follow God’s will no matter what, and no matter the unpleasant consequences. The late Pope Benedict XVI received respect from all his peers because he could never be drawn into factions and any ‘us vs them’ mentality. Any group of human beings has factions, usually divided between what is considered progress and what is considered keeping to the traditions; or divided between pro-leader and anti-leader. Belonging to factions usually requires some conformity even if the conformity is nonsensical or sinful. Belonging to factions also closes the mind and heart to alternate ideas. Because groups of priests who drink too much exist, and groups of religious who take on the latest spirituality craze exist, being able to resist joining them is important for spiritual health. Even in families, being able to resist ‘keeping up with the Jones family’ really matters. Tight budgets get tighter if everyone else seems to be getting new golf clubs or kitchen renovations.

Are they able to express gratitude for help received? There is a strain of priestly culture which says you don’t have to thank anybody, because if you do thank them, you reduce God’s reward to them. That is erroneous. God cannot be outdone in generosity, and He rewards those who serve Him in lavish ways. Visiting a nursing home is very instructive. The residents who are unresponsive and cranky no one wants to serve or visit. The residents who are responsive and who show gratitude for assistance given, everyone wants to serve and visit them. Anything you reward with thanks, praise or tokens of appreciation will reinforce that behaviour. But it needs to be the right behaviour and not the wrong behaviour. I’ve seen too many rewards given to workaholics who sacrificed sleep, health and family to meet a business requirement. I’ve rarely seen a reward for someone who gets the job done quietly and efficiently and maintains a proper work-life balance. But going overboard with thanks for every little tiny thing is bad too. Appreciation when given must mean something and not nothing. It is the person who gets to the church early to open up for Mass who needs some encouragement and recognition now and then, since most people don’t see it happen. It is the mother doing the daily tasks of nurturing children who needs some encouragement and recognition now and then, and not only on Mothers Day. It is the religious who doesn’t hesitate to answer the door or answer the phone who needs some encouragement and recognition now and then. Having a heart of gratitude to God for all His gifts and blessings needs to spill over in gratitude for those who assist us.

Have they worked through any traumatic experiences to a place of acceptance and forgiveness? Very few people escape a traumatic experience in childhood or adolescence, and some of them are very big traumas eg domestic violence, death of a parent, serious illness, betrayal. Any unresolved grief, lingering resentment, unhealed soul wounds will eventually poison vocations if not dealt with. If a person is unable to say unequivocally that God is an utterly good Father towards themselves, then they will be unable to make that necessary proclamation to others. Until that level of acceptance and forgiveness is reached, they should not progress to the next step in their vocation, be that spouse, religious, deacon or priest. Yes, it can take a very long time to get to that place, but without achieving it they will be unable to give full consent to the next vocational step.

Do they include others in decision making processes? Only asking those who always agree with whatever you say doesn’t count. Unilateral decisions made by those in leadership are almost always bad news. Imagine making a decision about a new receptacle for the weekend collections without consulting your experienced wardens and your risk assessment people? Disaster. Where the new receptable was placed made theft easier and collections were pilfered. Imagine making a decision about a mission preacher without consulting your parish council and your parish influencers. Disaster. The mission preacher had the same accent inflections as the pastor, which were alien to the congregation. Getting to the better decisions requires some consultation with stakeholders and some consultation with those who have the necessary wisdom about the subject matter. It also involves having an attitude of seeking the best solution for the greatest common good, and the humble recognition that often you are indeed fallible and not omniscient. Without inviting input from his wife, how can a husband make the best decisions for their family?

This is the raw material necessary for any potential seminary candidate. Some of it can be learned and increased, some of it can’t. However these are also the potentialities for success as a parent, as a religious, and as a leader in any kind of organisation. Therefore anyone with this necessary raw material will have several organisations competing for his or her potential. Be aware that this kind of fierce competition is happening.

What can be learned and increased needs to become the aim of youth ministry and young adult ministry. That’s what we need to measure and celebrate, not numbers of emerging vocations. An emerging vocation is worth very little if it flames out due to lack of necessary raw material.

Thirdly, it takes time to distinguish between someone responding to the normal Christian vocation to holiness and mission and between someone responding to a higher call than that. Outwardly they often look the same.

A normal Christian vocation to holiness and mission will have a daily prayer life, and regularity about going to the sacrament of penance and attending Mass. All of us are called to love God with all our hearts, minds, souls and spirits. Attendance at adoration is normal. Getting excited about the bible, and papal documents, and saints, and prayer meetings and prayer retreats is normal. Getting enthusiastic about bringing the news of Jesus to others, and about helping those in need, is normal. All of these are needed to live a full Christian life whatever our vocation may be.

So what distinguishes a higher call?

A priestly vocation needs the desire and ability to preach, it also needs desire and ability to lead God’s people in holiness and mission.

Religious and priestly vocations also have a wideness and a focus in love. That’s the desire to love and serve as many as possible because it’s the only way that is big enough to return the overwhelming love that Jesus has shown them. There’s a sense that to focus the outpouring of their love for Jesus only into spouse and children is insufficient.

Higher calls are also distinguished by longer preparation times, seasons of wilderness, and a greater share of trials and ordeals. Have a quick read through how God prepared His biblical heroes especially Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and David and you will begin to comprehend. There’s also that line in scripture, ‘My son, if you aspire to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for an ordeal’. Ecclesiasticus 2:1

Higher calls can be given to lay people too. Consider those called to found ministries and those called to exercise charisms at levels of national and international significance: Writers, Artists, Musicians, Mercy, Evangelists, Healing, Signs and Wonders, Prophecy, Preaching, Teaching.

Any of these higher calls require extraordinary commitment. To be confronted with the possibility of a higher call when you are far from ready to even begin cautiously taking a surreptitious peek at it – is enough to make a young person run as fast as possible in the opposite direction.

That’s why it is so hard for young men to commit to any kind of youth group. They are already scared about how much God may ask of them, especially celibacy. Getting serious about God is dangerous stuff for a young man. Then when a seminarian or newly ordained priest visits the youth group to talk about answering God’s call, they very naturally take fright and go missing.

That’s why we’ve got to start doing things differently. Having a vocations director turn up to speak about priestly vocations when there’s only one young bloke in the youth group must stop. If that young bloke is already at church regularly, he’s already carrying the expectations of the whole congregation – a heavy and unfair load – and now he feels targeted by the talk, and then has to endure the shy and sly glances of everyone else in the room when the vocations director finishes his talk. I’d run, wouldn’t you?

About the only way around this impasse is to have a wide panel of people speaking about vocations. What you want is a holy accountant, a holy nurse, a holy grandmother, a holy police officer, a holy electrician, and a holy religious sharing about God’s call in their lives as well as the priestly representative. Then if a young person does get up sufficient courage to have a quiet word with the priestly representative, everyone else is lining up to know more from the other speakers – and the shy and sly glances are reduced to a minimum. What you want is for everyone to be excited about following God’s call, no matter what it happens to be.

Seminary itself is supposed to be a time of discernment. Sadly far too many people think that beginning seminary training means that becoming a priest or a religious is therefore a done deal. As soon as a youngster makes a tentative announcement about entering the seminary, priestly or religious, he or she is considered public property. That kind of pressure makes true discernment far more difficult than it needs to be. Please listen to this next statement very carefully. God has a track record of sending young men to seminary for a few years, and then calling them out again for other ministries. He knows they need the book learning for what He has for them to do. St Mary McKillop’s father had a few years in a seminary. One of the best regional St Vincent de Paul conference leaders had a few years in a seminary. Stop shaming the ones who exit seminary, and instead help them to follow whatever God is calling them to which needed that seminary experience. This is also true for those who enter religious life, learn to live in community and under the rule, and then leave. God isn’t finished with them either.
​
Our focus must turn to helping each young person to develop the traits which will make them successful in whatever God calls them to do, and to helping all of them to listen, discern and respond to what God is calling them to do. Because everything God calls us to do is important. Even responding to a nudge from God that a certain acquaintance needs a phone call is important. Learning to listen, discern and respond to the easy stuff is the best preparation for listening, discerning and responding to the greater stuff.

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.

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.

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 still at the half-way mark, following a disruptive but seemingly fruitful day on 6 July. Since the last blog-post I have watched the Mass for the Church from last night, and the Plenary tracker episode from last night, as well as many religious blogs from 6 July and 7 July, and the livestreamed morning session. Due to the events of yesterday I didn’t expect any voting results to be released at 1pm, so I didn’t go looking for them.
 
The first official media briefing I was aware of happened on Monday evening and was published on YouTube. I kept looking for more media briefings, in the obvious places, and found nothing until I heard a remark about Archbishop Coleridge talking to the press. Eventually I looked at Facebook, and on the Plenary Council page found two official media briefings published via Facebook live. It makes no sense to me either. But both Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s media briefings were worth viewing, which I did back to back last night.
 
One of them mentioned the wording of the welcome to country from Tuesday morning, which was particularly good:
“We pay respect to elders past, present and their youth, as they hold the dreams of the future. I also extend that respect and acknowledgment to all of you today and the lands from which we’re all gathered, and also to your ancestors and where you’ve come from as well.”
 
Archbishop Coleridge re-quoted from his ACBC homily of 27 Nov 2018:
“According to the papal preacher Raniero Cantalamessa, “ordination provides the authorization to do certain things but not necessarily the authority to do them. It assures the apostolic succession but not necessarily apostolic success”. It’s the Spirit who provides the authority and the success.”
 
The point being that apostolic success is dependent on people with the right charisms of the Holy Spirit collaborating together on the right projects. Just because someone is ordained doesn’t mean they have charisms of preaching, pastoring and administration. Since the gifting of charisms depends on baptism (and confirmation) and not ordination, recognition of this could be the path forward for new governance models and the role of women in the church.
 
One of the outcomes from yesterday is an understanding that the Yes with reservations is suitable for collaborative votes, but it is not suitable for deliberative votes. Reading between the lines, one has to wonder whether all the bishops were listening when the assembly was told Yes with reservation votes would be counted as No votes. Because a special meeting of bishops was held behind closed doors, we are not privy to why some of them voted No and some of them voted Yes with reservations.
 
Another outcome from yesterday is that Motion 4, the one about women in the church, will be adjusted by a panel of 4, two members and two experts, and then the votes on that revised motion will be held on Friday.
 
Subsequently the two motions that didn’t get dealt with yesterday have to be squeezed in between today and tomorrow. But even that has necessitated a better outcome. Decisions have been made to make the time set aside for spiritual conversations shorter, more streamlined and focused on the motions; and a more iterative and real-time consultative process has been sketched out for the rest of the second assembly, with each motion taking as long as it takes to get it right – or so we hope.
 
In last night’s Plenary Tracker Mary Coloe had useful input. She reminded us that there are parts of discernment that happen before a decision, and there’s discernment that happens after a decision. When a decision is made and general discomfort results, like happened yesterday, then general agreement is that the wrong decision was made and a better one needs to be found. It is quite normal that sometimes discernment is clearer after a decision is made.
 
I feel I need to declare that many of the conclusions made by John Warhurst in his media release at 6.39pm yesterday don’t hold water; and will go through some of them in detail. I accept that it was probably written in haste, and under strong emotions, and used provocative language like ‘failure, desperately, stunning blow’ etc, and which he will likely regret writing for a long time to come.
 
The vote was not a failure to give unqualified recognition to women in the Church. Actually the motion was too big and too unwieldy. Even the large number of Yes with reservations votes from the non-bishops bears out that truth.
 
I can’t see how a rejection of contemporary values matters at all. Ditto ‘reflecting the will of the people’. We believe in a God, as James 1:17 says, with Whom there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow of a change. It is His will, and His will alone that we desire to discern and implement. Finding ways to express that holy will which enable each culture and epoch to take that holy will on board is the perennial challenge of the Church throughout the ages.
 
Warhurst wrote ‘the church desperately needs women in leadership roles at a time with the number of male priests is draining away’. Women in leadership roles has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers of male priests, absolutely nothing. The sense I’ve picked up from many plenary council members on this topic is that this is far more about baptismal dignity and opportunities for collaboration in decision making than anything else. That there are women in rural and remote areas who are undertaking various pastoral tasks and desire to be included in decision making regarding those under their care is the issue, not that the situation is due to absence of priests in those areas.
 
He also wrote the following which seems patently unfair: ‘But it is the refusal of many bishops to consider discussing with women the creation of women deacons – should Pope Francis authorise such a ministry – that is so disheartening’. That this part of the motion is even on the table, approved by both steering committee and drafting committee for deliberation, and not expunged after amendments to the draft motions were sought is prima facie evidence that the bishops are more than happy to discuss and debate this part of the motion.
 
Warhurst also frames the non-approved vote as ‘a blow to hopes raised that in the wake of the disastrous child sexual abuse royal commission that promised church reforms that would mean no more "business as usual” ’. If you think by the mere placement of women in decision making bodies the conditions for future abuse evaporate – have I got news for you! For abuse to happen, and for abuse to continue, there is a degree to which women are enablers viz young woman goes to older woman to report abuse from a significant person in the older woman’s life, and the initial and perhaps ongoing response is disbelief. It happens. Putting women in decision making positions is not going to stop abuse. Some argue that having a woman present will reduce clericalism, but we’ve all seen clericalized women, with paid professional careers in diocesan curia and similar places and their job description/allegiance is to bishop and curia, not to pew-sitters and whistle blowers.
 
The non-approved vote on motion 4 does not mean it will be ‘business as usual’ after the second assembly ends. That’s grossly unfair. To have even had these discussions at plenary council level and to have had broad consensus, as evidenced by between half and two-thirds voting Yes at both consultative votes and deliberate votes, means that business will most definitely not be ‘as usual’. Through all the sharing and listening, as uncomfortable and intense as it has sometimes been, there has been a massive shift in collective thinking. How that works itself out in practice – it’s too soon to tell – but to deny that it has happened is unjust.
 
Compared to previous days, online commentary has been abundant. Whether that’s because of today’s controversies or because it has taken this long to get a sense of how the second assembly is going, or both, is up for debate. Daniel Ang and Philippa Martyr have made excellent written contributions to the wider discussion, and I’ll now present some of them, two from each, albeit they are paraphrased and edited.
 
Daniel Ang. 6 July. Edited.
Tensions within the Council are not only the result of issues with the process of the Council itself but also with the distinct ecclesiological imaginations at play among members - with at least two primary dialects evident on the Council floor. One dialect focusses largely on the outward organisation or ‘form’ of the Church and the re-distribution of its goods. The other sets its focus upon the inner life of faith, on the common need for conversion and the call to evangelisation.
 
History has shown us that when the organisation and practical actions of ecclesial bodies lose contact with the Catholic tradition, its teachings and sacramental life, they not only diminish but ultimately disintegrate.
 
Philippa Martyr. 7 July. Paraphrased and edited.
As a woman with work and study commitments, with care commitments to elderly parents and to a teenager, it wasn’t possible for me to become a Plenary Council member because I didn’t have months to spend with ‘gifted sharers of their personal journeys’. In the absence of ordinary people like me, a group of privileged women and their man friends have tried to impose their pet projects on the Plenary Council.
The papal commission on the diaconate has two broad options. It can uphold Vatican II’s understanding of the diaconate as part of a continuum of Holy Orders. This means it’s not open to women. Or it can go back to a more primitive understanding of the diaconate. This means uncoupling it from the priesthood altogether, and if ordained at all, ordained in a way that separates them completely from the priesthood.
 
Lest anyone erroneously think that deacons have any part in diocesan decision making, Bishop Mark Edwards recalled his experience of being a deacon as having no decision making input at all. A deacon’s role is to serve the Word of God, to serve the poor, and to do whatever the bishop wants them to do. It’s far from glamorous.
 
Bishop Edwards also shared how a brave table member was willing to call other table members to a higher understanding than the general consensus of opinion. This person shared that evangelisation, is offering someone something precious we have found, it is not focused on getting more rear ends on pews. Facilitating someone’s response to Jesus and an encounter with Him has to take primacy; whether or not that leads to them attending some kind of worship in person is up to them.
 
In one sense it was ‘business as usual’ on Wednesday evening at Mass. Zero mention was made of any of the tumultuous day that had been. Even though it appears to be standard operating procedure, it is flawed. It is so much better to acknowledge that there has been turmoil, to even offer the opportunity for sign of peace-like gestures of solidarity to each other, and to then invite everyone to leave their cares and concerns behind for this brief hour, and to focus together on God. Ignoring it makes it worse. Ignoring it induces anger.
 
I did read some commentary expositing that with the explicit mention of public juridic persons in some of the earlier motions that this effectively means that leadership of socials services, hospitals, educational institutions etc have a place at the decision making table alongside bishops, clerics and religious. That feels like a sea-change with monumental implications, although no-one would doubt that better collaboration among them would be a very good thing.
 
There are a few notions from last night’s plenary tracker that deserve mention:
Mary Coloe said she’d be quite happy to receive authorization to preach (she does regularly train seminarians in the arts of preaching) and sees no reason why authorization to preach cannot be separated from ordination.
Mary also spoke about the disparity of resources devoted to seminary education compared with resources devoted to non-seminary education. Studying theology at any level, if you are not a seminarian or already ordained, is a voluntary thing, depending on person’s interests, ability and the depth of his or her pockets -since it is quite expensive.
 
Then Genevieve shared from the heart about the many years she has served as a reader at Mass, and how demoralizing it has been to have to accept that her contributions have not been valued because she’s been seen as a lesser substitute because a male reader wasn’t available. With Pope Francis recently opening up the ministry of lector to women, this has thankfully changed. But the years of hurt remain. Been there, done that, still bear the scars. I stepped down from public proclamation of the scriptures some 20 years ago, firstly due to a perception that I was too visible for some people (when actually it was willingness and ability to step in at short notice), and secondly, because if being a lector was only officially for men, I’d better step down and hope and pray that some men stepped up. I had also noted that when a man speaks publicly the message is unimpeded. When a woman speaks publicly the message is always impeded by what she is wearing, despite her very best efforts to the contrary.
 
Someone has to lead and someone has to follow, otherwise unified action isn’t possible. But is leadership of the first among equals variety, which actively consults on decision making unless dire urgency makes that impractical. That’s the kind of leadership that makes marriage, parishes and dioceses work. In biblical and Christian history that kind of community leadership has been given by God to male priests and male elders. Exceptions to that rule, like Judith and Deborah, are quite rare.
 
Be careful what you attribute to the Holy Spirit. Was yesterday’s impasse due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Or was it due to the clout of the C.C.C.G * and the emotive language they’ve been using? Or was it a bit of both? There’s been so much whipping up of emotions, and so much, ‘we want this or else’, that discussion failed at times to be collaborative and became combative. Singularly lacking has been efforts to help those with hurts and grievances to come to peace and healing through forgiving the perpetrators (real and/or perceived) for the sources of those hurts and grievances. True clarity cannot come if there are blockages to love and emotional baggage in the way. Very welcome would be any kind of prayer for healing of hurts, and any gestures of mutual reconciliation- and for first nations as much as for abuse survivors as much as for women and men who carry wounds due to sub-optimal clerical behaviour.
 
No decisions about us without us: that’s women, first nations, disabled, homeless, those with non-standard sexual orientations etc. Sadly that seeking of input from the people affected directly by the decisions has been rare. Witness how often we put in toilet facilities with wheelchair access and then fail to provide any ramps to help those with wheelchairs get to those toilets. This is about moving towards a collaborative model for decision making, and to an extent it is about justice. However we have to acknowledge that the decision making buck has to stop somewhere, and that’s the demanding role given by God to the clergy.
 
Thankfully Archbishop Coleridge gave an answer to why there isn’t a 9th part in the plenary council considerations about marriage and family. Two reasons were given: One was that compared to the other 8 topics significantly fewer responses from the listening phase had been received about marriage and family. It was also thought that considerations upon marriage and family were more appropriate at a local and diocesan level than at a national level at this time.
 
Stay tuned for more tomorrow.

* C.C.C.G. are the Concerned Catholics of Canberra Goulburn the organisation behind Plenary Tracker.

The second and final assembly of the 5th Plenary Council of Australia is now well into the swing of things. Since the last blog-post I have watched the Ukrainian Eastern Rite Mass from last night, and the Plenary tracker episode from last night, as well as blogs today 5 July 2022, the livestreamed morning session, the official press briefing recorded last night and released this morning, and the results of the first full day of voting.
 
May God help me to get everything churning inside me out in writing.
 
Musings about how ‘Yes with reservation’ votes would be counted were answered today. They won’t be recorded as Yes votes, nor even as 50% votes. But if the numbers of Yes with reservation votes are of sufficient size, they might become a catalyst for a re-drafting of the motion prior to further voting.
 
I have to admit I’ve had the passage in the Gospel where Jesus says, ‘say Yes if you mean Yes, and No if you mean No’ coming to mind and wondering how come there’s a ’Yes with reservations’ at all. According to Bishop McKinley the ‘Yes with reservations’ was used at the Second Vatican Council, and it was used by member bishops to signal that the text was on the right track but needed deeper reflection and modification. Something like, ‘headed in the right direction, but currently half-baked and needs work’. I’m now feeling settled about it, but annoyed that such explanations weren’t provided in the 29 June working document for the second assembly.
 
There were some comments on the 3 July Plenary Tracker about how visually confronting it was to see the aisle at the MacKillop shrine divide lay folk from clerical folk. Someone suggested it would be more ‘we’re in this together’ if the seating was mixed rather than segregated. For this there are two answers. The first is the scriptural precedent in both Old and New Testaments for a hierarchical priesthood, with priests separated unto the Lord God to display His holiness. To even suggest mixing it up speaks volumes about our scriptural illiteracy. The second is purely practical due to the processing in and out of the church, the veneration of the altar, and the communion procession. It flows better if they all sit together. Imagine the chaos with vested personages trying to clamber over lay persons to get to the aisle, to do what needs to be done, and then to clamber back over them to resume their seats.
 
All the first day’s motions were passed with two significant amendments, the first amendment being an improvement of language and intent, and the second setting up formal research into why the abuse scandals happened. According to Bishop McKinley such research would not start from scratch but would draw on and expand upon research already done in Australia and from around the world. There was some consensus that the other motions on this sensitive topic were about dealing with what has already happened, and this amendment would go towards improving future outcomes.
 
One of the Plenary Tracker panelists ventured that the current model of seminary formation is a root cause of the clericalism which is a prerequisite for abuse to happen. Apparently prior to the Council of Trent seminary formation didn’t take place in seminaries. But that had sufficient problems for the Council of Trent to do something about it. I do have sympathy with the view of seminary as a hot house for clericalism.
 
The big topic for today’s deliberations is the place of women in the Church. Still issuing from my ears is the steam produced by Sr Clare Condon’s presentation this morning. Simplistically her argument was that since baptism gives everyone equal dignity in Christ, and in modern life gender is no longer an obstacle to employment occupation, therefore all roles in the Church should be open to women as well as men. Arrgghhh! God made them male and female, He did not make them androgynous. He made them different for divine reason. The dignity of each is the same, but the roles of each gender are different. As the French say, Vive La Differance! It is our differences working together that produce the image of God. As this movement towards androgyny and transgenderism gains pace, the birth rate is plummeting. It is the differences between male and female that attract the opposite sex, and keep them attracted, and it’s those same differences comprised of complementary gifting which makes long-term team work between a male and a female far more successful than teamwork between two people of the same gender.
 
Yet I am in sympathy with all those who chafe under a sub-optimal parish priest and under a sub-optimal bishop. The power a priest has to make a lay person’s life miserable is enormous. Only the power a bishop has to make a priest’s life miserable is greater. As much as I might desire a clerical ombudsman to detail my grievances to, sadly there’s no precedent in scripture. It is God’s role alone, and His option of choice to deal with clerical reprehensibility is to send a prophet.
 
Perhaps the answer lays in begging the Holy Spirit to raise up prophets, and to back that up with resources for giving those with nascent prophetic charisms the teaching and wisdom distilled by the Church over the centuries about the guidelines for use of the charism and growth in the charism.
 
But I also can’t escape another biblical precedent. Israel flourished whenever it had a wise and holy leader. It strayed from God’s ways whenever the leader was worldly rather than godly. Could there be a relationship between the current state of the Catholic Church in Australia and the number of bishops answering to the description coined by Philippa Martyr, ‘bishop bland’? Could an answer be for all the non-episcopal members of the Plenary Council to pray over all the episcopal members of the Plenary Council before the second assembly ends, praying for the gifts of the Holy Spirit to be released afresh over each one of them? A secondary idea would be to also pray over all the non-episcopal clerical members of the Plenary Council - because many of them are likely to be future bishops.
 
The voting process of the bishops this morning was nothing short of a shemozzle. Somehow I had it in my mind that they’d all go off to a smaller room than the great big hall, or go into a voting area just before they entered the big hall. This handing out voting papers in such a haphazard way, and then getting the bishops, most of whom are plus or minus aged 70, to negotiate through the crowded tables to the voting baskets and back again – it can’t continue. Those voting remotely could do so in the same pre-first session timeslot.
 
Back to the actual voting. All of the votes had either No votes or Yes with reservation votes. I want to know why they didn’t vote Yes. I have in mind the way the Supreme Court of the United States operates, providing both a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion. Both are equally valuable. Even if the dissenting reasons have to be given anonymously, we still need to know what they are. And we still need to find solutions to address the concerns underlying those dissenting reasons.
 
Two experiences have convinced me of this. The first is how many of my dissenting opinions regarding a building project have proved to be real – witnessed by many users of the building complaining about exactly the same things that concerned me, and might I add on a regular basis by both locals and visitors. The second is a narrative told me about an event in a local protestant parish. Their previous youth minister had moved on, and they needed a new one. A wise facilitator got the decision makers together and asked them to describe the qualities they thought were essential for a youth leader in that parish. This would help the decision makers sort through the applications made for the job. A short list was made, and pros and cons of each candidate were discussed. Having the list of qualities needed helped enormously. Then the wise facilitator took another step, it was really important that there be unanimous agreement upon the candidate selected because when the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the Acts of the Apostles their decisions were unanimous. A vote was taken and the result was almost unanimous. The facilitator then asked questions of the objectors. They were very practical and thoughtful objections. Some were easily solved, others like how on earth are we going to pay for the salary of this new minister were less easily solved. But under the facilitators guidance they worked out a solution to that too. Now 100% of the decision makers agreed, and they also a much better outcome than if the trouble hadn’t been taken to sort out the objections. The choice of which candidate to become the new youth minister proved to be an excellent one, and this person served with distinction for many years.
 
I almost didn’t view the press briefing, but I am now glad I did because the journalists asked good questions and the panel of members provided useful answers. In particular, the way the panel shared about the dedication of the members to their momentous task and the depths of unity and relationship being felt by the members has settled my heart, since this seems to be evidence that the Holy Spirit is involved. May His felt presence continue and become ever stronger.
 
The absolute treat of the last 24 hours was the Ukrainian Eastern Rite Mass at St Mary’s Cathedral. It was my first opportunity to witness this version of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and worth every moment. Throughout the whole rite the emphasis on the two big truths hammered out at the early Church Councils was present, that God is Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. Note both the two candlesticks, one with 2 candles and one with 3 candles, and how many non-candle blessings had two fingers on one hand and three fingers on the other. Even though it wasn’t easy to translate the liturgy from its usual surroundings to a western rite sanctuary, they did an amazing job to share the beauty and wonder that this liturgy evokes. To me the message came through loud and clear, ‘This is My Church. I am God Almighty, more loving and more powerful than you can possibly comprehend. Don’t mess with My will for My Church.’ My hope is that many members heard that message too, although some of the Plenary Tracker panel brushed it off.
 
The same Plenary Tracker panel members who are also Plenary Council members seem to be brushing off increasingly pointed official hints that forceful lobby groups are not wanted at the second assembly.
 
Stay tuned for more spleen venting tomorrow.

​The Gospel for this Sunday, the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B, is taken from St Mark Chapter 10 and tells us what happened when Jesus was interrupted with a man’s nagging question.

Jesus had just been to the man’s locality and had presumably done His normal preaching, teaching, and healing in the public gathering areas of that locality. Whatever Jesus said has caused a stirring within the man.

We might ask, why didn’t he ask this question earlier?

It is a real interruption to the schedule Jesus had, and we aren’t told what the consequences of setting out then and there actually were, eg not getting to the next place before night fall; having to stay an extra day where they were, missing a meal or celebration, maybe spending the night on the ground instead of under a roof. But Jesus doesn’t complain, He patiently listens to the man, and gives him His full attention.

Unlike the question the Pharisees put last week, this question is real and authentic, and we’ve all heard someone ask a version of it.

He asks, ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’

In other words, What’s the minimum I have to do to get a dead-cert entry pass for heaven?
Or, ‘If there a one-stop, fix, set-and-forget way to obtain eternal life?’

This man is thinking in terms of a transaction, like buying a plane ticket or a car.

But this question must have been niggling at him for a while.

I can imagine an internal battle going on inside him:
Do I really want this question answered?
How much do I want this question answered?
What if I don’t like the answer?
This Jesus person is the only person I’ve come across who could really answer this question.
So are you going to approach Him or not?
Does my desire for the answer outweigh the possible public notoriety for asking it?

He’s possibly been wrestling with himself for days, ever since Jesus showed up; and it is only the thought of missing out on ever getting the answer - because Jesus is leaving and unlikely to ever return - that eventually pushes him into action but at the last possible moment.

Jesus now seeks a bit more background before He answers. It isn’t quite like answering a question with a question as He did with the Pharisees, but it is similar.

From the 10 commandments, Jesus selects only those that are about our relationships with each other, and not in our memorized order either, No 6 You shall not kill; No 7 You shall not commit adultery; No 8 You shall not steal; No 9 You shall not give false witness, an interesting spin on No 10 You shall not defraud; and No.5 Honour your father and your mother.

The man replies, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my earliest days’; in other words: ‘I know these are not enough, otherwise I would not have come to You, I sense much more is required, but I don’t know what that ‘much more’ is, and I do want to know’. To be capable of desiring the ‘much more’, the man would have to be feeling restlessness and dissatisfaction with his current life.

Aha! It is God Himself who has been stirring within this man if he is able to verbalize this truth.

Jesus gazed at him with ‘agape’ love and gave him the momentous answer; ‘Go and sell what you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have wealth in heaven; then, come, follow Me’.

‘Come follow me’ is what Jesus said when He invited each of the apostles into special relationship with Him.

Later on, when the man has left, Jesus speaks to His own, and He gazes at them with the same ‘agape’ love.

Answering like this, Jesus tells the man (and us), that heaven isn’t an object to be purchased, but a relationship with Him that requires 100% ongoing commitment.

For this man, used to purchasing all he desires through material wealth, the price of eternal life is far too high. Purchasing objects needs zero emotional involvement; entering an apostolic relationship with Jesus needs total emotional commitment, and total commitment from every other area of his life.

High calling, high reward, requiring high personal cost.

Who can make and keep such an audacious commitment to the person of Jesus?
Only those called and empowered to do so by God.

This is what sets the vocational call to consecrated, religious, or priestly life beyond the regular baptismal call to holiness.

As Jesus promises, it is this 100% giving of themselves to Him, the leaving everything and following Him, which gets rewarded a hundred-fold in this life, and in eternal life.

Notice that Jesus leaves the man completely free to decide, He neither badgers, coerces nor entices. He just offers an invitation.

We know that the man walked away sad. He was offered the Great Treasure, an apostolic calling, yet he rejected it.

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus was saddened as well. Who knows? If this chap had said ‘Yes’ maybe today he would be a household name of the same magnitude as Peter or Paul, instead of a nameless cautionary tale.

Where does that leave us?

Firstly it leaves us praying for those whom Jesus is calling into an apostolic commitment to Him, that they may be given the heavenly help to say their total Yes to Jesus.

Secondly it makes us take a good hard look at our own commitment to Jesus, and the things that we are, and aren’t, willing to give up for His sake.
​
Finally if you have been experiencing that same restlessness, dissatisfaction, and sense that there must be ‘much more’, and that you want ‘much more’, then put the terms ‘Vocation Director’ and the name of your nearest regional or capital city into an internet search, and give that person a call.

Knowing how to sift true from false prophecy is something that everyone needs. It may be easier to understand if some case studies are used.

This need came to my attention through a friend who had been sent an unsolicited prophetic word by an email. The friend had no idea where the prophet had obtained the email address from. However, it was a lengthy piece, and it spoke into all the hopes and frustrations this friend was experiencing, ie it was exactly what the friend wanted to be true.

Thankfully the friend had the courage to share it with me.

The very first thing after reading the prophetic word and ascertaining that it contained nothing specifically pertaining to the life of this friend, ie there was nothing in it that couldn’t easily be applied to the life of just about anyone else (warning flag 1) was to search the internet for what could be learned about the prophet.

The website had a pleasant feel, and a link to what must be a very inspiring conversion story, and some very basic Christian teaching without any perceived denominational biases. But it did contain a few things that gave me significant pause; a few very general prophetic words that were undated, no contact information or details, and no affiliation with any faith community.

It is so unusual for a prophetic word to be undated (warning flag 2). No address, no social media links, no email address, no contact form where you would expect it to be (ie an easily visible Contact page), but given bit by bit under a ‘please support this ministry’ sub-page that begins by asking for donations (warning flag 3). There is no indication on the website that the prophet is part of a faith community, in leadership of a faith community, or anything other than a lone ranger. Ideally a prophet should have a regular small group to which he/she is personally accountable, and should also be under some form of leadership to whom he/she is also accountable. Otherwise there are none of the normal and natural checks and balances that come from community life where people are invested in you enough to ask the odd quiet question if you are looking like going off the rails, or when your walk doesn’t match your talk. (major warning flag 4).

If something is exactly what you want to hear, (eg in order for the destiny God has for you to unfold, don’t let anyone box you in to their mindsets) and it doesn’t contain any invitation to transformation that leads to a deeper relationship with God, that should put up a warning flag too. It is a hallmark of the Gospel accounts that Jesus always invited people to the next level of relationship with Him, requiring either a change of heart or a change of life.

There were enough warning flags to safely dismiss and delete that email.

Around the internet at present there is a set of major ‘doom and gloom’ prophecies going around. The prophet is not a regular prophet, but is in leadership with a Christian community, and has had some vivid dreams that were felt to be prophetic for a national and global scale.

Can God call anybody to deliver a message? Yes, He can, for example the prophet Amos. However, it is more usual for an important wake-up call kind of message to be given to someone who is mature in the prophetic gifting and widely recognised as such, with a reasonable track record for accuracy.

There is also a difference between a Jonah-like warning message that invites to repentance and a Daniel-like message declaring that God’s judgement on bad behaviour is going to manifest in specific ways. Neither are certain; the former can be mitigated or even avoided by repentance (Ninevah); the latter can be mitigated by intercession (2 Sam 24). But even the most dire of messages warning of austere times to come contain an inkling of hope, that after punishment and exile that there would be restoration and return (Jeremiah).

However if the prophet reveals that his/her consumption of news media is greater than his/her consumption of God’s word in scripture, then extra caution is required.

Many years back this lesson was given to me. It happened like this. The community I was a member of at that time was receiving lots of apocalyptic sounding prophecy. It somehow happened that I was able to have a chat to one of the most accredited prophets in that community about all this apocalyptic stuff. His response was that many in the community had been reading the same spiritual/devotional literature that contained that kind of language. The ideas you consume eventually come out again, and often get processed in dreams and can be expressed in prophecy. And that was what had been happening in that community situation. You can see it too in less mature prophets who drink in what a lot of other prophets are releasing online. Sometime down the track, all of that prophetic soup will emerge in a very generic prophecy (and very sincerely given) that is a reasonable summary of the main flavours of the soup.

Such known human weaknesses do make it less clear to discern whether God is telling everyone the same message (in which case, Pay Attention!!!), or whether everyone has collectively gone off on a non-God inspired tangent. For this reason, keep aware of times of the liturgical year that various messages arise.

Sometimes they are collective wishful thinking born of deep desire to see God act in powerful ways, as what often happens as Easter, Pentecost and Christmas draw near or something related to the Jewish liturgical calendar. You see this big crescendo of expectation, and then as the special date passes, there is a lull until someone comes out with a statement that the date was still very important, and we will find out why in due time things didn’t manifest in the natural and there’s even bigger and better things coming in a month or 3 months’ time. Yes, it is easy to become cynical, but we do have to fight against that lest we dismiss a true message from God. That’s why growing in discernment is so important and so necessary.

Discernment can take time. And it is easy for us to get it wrong.

Just recently I have had to sadly acknowledge that someone I had on my short list of trusted online prophets was no longer worthy of being on that list. When the messages are exactly what you want to hear, and those messages get picked up and promoted by others and there are online followers in the order of tens of thousands, then of course you are biased towards the messages being true prophecy. But slowly some question marks began to arise. The first question marks happened when some of my cautionary comments that had logical merit were rejected out of hand. The second question marks began when there were more lists of how to do this or how to respond to that, which were all just human thoughts. The third set of question marks began when ‘sign up for my online course’ appeared at the end of prophetic messages, and it was an almost seamless segue. The final question marks were due to the disclosure by way of sharing personal background that this was, despite friendships and recognition from other prophets in good standing, very much a lone ranger ministry although it was couched in pioneer terminology. So I went back and took a more detailed look at the associated website, and the lack of accountable relationships became apparent.

It is like this, as far as possible there should be no conflict of interest between the ministry of a prophet and the way a prophet earns a living. The whole ‘God showed me how to deal with issue X in a whole new and effective way, but you need to pay $$ before I will share it with you’ thing flies in the face of ‘you received without charge, give without charge’ Matt 10:8. At the same time, a labourer is worthy of his hire, so there is no objection to a Donate/Give page. But when the prophet’s main source of income is online mentoring courses or similar, how can the prayers and natural desires for a good sign-up rate not transmute consciously or unconsciously into the prophetic messages, particularly when those messages are squarely aimed at hidden and forgotten ones who have a big destiny in God’s plan? Isn’t this what we all long to hear when we feel that life has passed us by, thus making us very vulnerable and susceptible to exploitation?

Then again, some things are presented as prophecy, when in fact all they are is teaching or preaching on some topic of the life of faith. Weigh it for what it is, not what it purports to be.

In this age of prophets with some celebrity status, it is well to remember that popularity is not a guarantee of accuracy. In the time of Jeremiah there were plenty of prophets announcing times of prosperity ahead, and only Jeremiah repeating God’s warning that the punishment of exile for their sins was coming. Of course the people of that time wanted to listen to the other prophets who spoke what they wanted to hear, and of course they wanted to shut Jeremiah up by any means necessary.

There will be times of restoration and refreshing, just as there will be times of trial and testing, therefore the maxim, ‘test everything, and hold onto what is good’ has to be our guide, as well as frequent prayers for guidance and discernment.

Why is the accountability thing so important? Because a true prophet is going to have enough humility to mistrust his/her own judgement, and be open to correction and submission/obedience to leadership. Even the best of prophets don’t get it 100% right every time (1 Cor 13:9). Obedience to lawful human authority despite what the prophet believes God has told him/her is the ultimate test of legitimacy. If it is of God it will come to pass, despite setbacks, delays and misunderstandings. Any prophet who thinks that everything they receive is always 100% from God is deluding themselves, and a big danger to themselves and others. Do you know what the worst punishment is from God? To be let drift into error. Because unless someone intercedes for you, there’s no way out. (read St John of Avila’s ‘Listen Daughter’ a.k.a. ‘Audi Filia’ for the best ever explanation of this.) Even Moses had his father-in-law Jethro as someone willing to speak truth into his life.

Now should a prophet make a grand prediction, and it doesn’t come to pass, eg a major share market crash during the visit of a specified world leader, then said prophet is automatically and completely discredited.

Particularly when it comes to dreams and visions, it can be crucial to separate the raw material of the prophecy from the interpretation of the prophecy. Quite often the raw material is correct, but the interpretation is incorrect or immature (ie the prophet has only grasped the first layer of the interpretation and not yet the underlying layers of interpretation.) In essence they are similar to parables. With time and diligent prayer, usually the full meaning comes to light.

Sometimes a prophecy (particularly to a community) is an invitation to go deeper, and the ‘more’ that God intended doesn’t happen because the response to the prophecy was mismanaged. For example, someone in that community who has been growing in the prophetic gifting shares that God has shown a vision of angels, surrounding the prayer meeting, who are waiting to be sent on assignment. Responding with a call to those at the prayer meeting to present their petitions to God is level 1. If you took that word seriously you would them get the prophet back and ask if there were any angels left, and if so, how many? (level 2) and if the answer wasn’t zero, you should then either get the people to petition some more, or better yet, ask the community to pray for wisdom in order to petition according to God’s desires (level 3) and delegate a leader to question the prophet about any details not disclosed in the initial message (ask if the angels were all the same size?, were they perhaps in groups?, was there anything to distinguish the groups eg colour, what they were holding?) which might give clues to the How to pray. If there is any sense that this might be a more significant word than first ascertained, then and there, or soon afterwards, get the prophet to have a go at drawing what they saw in as much detail as possible, and then share both the verbal and drawn parts with leadership and other prophets to pray over, discuss and ask further questions. After all, if it was God’s intention to lead the group into prolonged and specific intercession for local political leaders and business leaders, or for the bringing down of some stronghold that was preventing the conversion of the region, and everyone prayed for those they knew in personal, financial or family stress, then that was a comparatively poor outcome.

Some prophecies don’t find fulfilment for a year or several years, some don’t find fulfilment in our lifetimes. Because of this, some interpretations take a while to become clear. For example, St Catherine Laboure was convinced that much needed funds would appear if an area was dug down to a certain level. Everyone else thought she was crazy to keep insisting upon it. Yet in the years ahead, that area was the place where her body was buried, and not too long after a very sizable donation was anonymously placed on her tomb.

Care should be exercised when reading prophecies from years past and seeing in them relevance for today. That can indeed happen. However it is also possible that the mindset with which you read it today prejudices you into believing that it is solely about the current times. For example the pandemic situation the world has recently found itself in has seen a lot of re-evaluation of past prophecies. Many of them read like they were written for us today, and some of the phrases that were glossed over back then, now seem to carry increased meaning (eg A great shaking happening among the nations, and peoples locked down by a spirit of fear). ‘Lockdown’ carries a whole new level of meaning now that it didn’t pre-Covid19, as does ‘lawlessness’ in the wake of the George Floyd riots. Yet there is no guarantee that this is the only era it was meant for, or even if it was the primary era it was meant for.

We do know that God never takes back or revokes His gifts, and that He always invites us to grow. The intended life cycle of a prophet is that as they grow in experience, they also grow in holiness, and weightier and more important prophetic words can be given through them. However this doesn’t always happen; what started out relatively pure can become increasingly sullied with human frailty and error; or what started out pure can go through a wilderness period away from the moral life and then re-emerge stronger than ever after a sincere conversion. Sometimes there will be only a single season of profound revelation, and then no more, if that is God’s plan for them. St Bernadette is an example of this; and saw herself as a broom that was used by God for a while, and then put away. Always the revelation is firstly for the prophet, and then for others. If the prophet is growing in response to the revelation, and growing in holiness and in moral character, it is an indication that what they are receiving is God inspired.

If God is trying to get a message across, He will use more than one messenger, and probably from diverse sources. Therefore, if a message is of a personal nature, it will confirm something He has already called you to do, or in time to come it will be confirmed via other sources. So never change your life on the strength of a single unconfirmed word. Write it down, store it somewhere, refer back to it every 3-6 months, it may make more sense then. If it doesn’t, and there haven’t been any confirmations of it, you can safely forget all about it.

These are only general guidelines born of experience for sifting out the questionable. For every general guideline there are exceptions, because God is not limited and He sometimes chooses to use the unusual or discredited to get our attention and loosen our pre-conceived ideas.

Here are some scriptural reminders that the gift of prophecy is a good gift from God, and needed, and worth the effort of time in discernment and interpretation:

1 Thess 5:19-21 Never try to suppress the Spirit or treat the gift of prophecy with contempt: think before you do anything – hold on to what is good.

2 Peter 1:19b-20 You will be right to depend on prophecy and take it as a lamp for lighting a way through the dark until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must be most careful to remember that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual.

I Cor 14:3 The man who prophesies does talk to other people, to their improvement, their encouragement and their consolation.

1 Cor 14:32 Prophets can always control their prophetic spirits, since God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
​
For more detailed guidance on prophecy, interpretation and discernment, please read the attached document, particularly pages 11-16 and pages 18-20.

On Pentecost Sunday 2020 the Reports from the Plenary Council’s six Writing and Discernment Groups were released. I have read Philippa Martyr’s and Fr John Miechels’s commentaries on these Reports. Both commentaries are well worth reading. But they do make a person reluctant to read the Reports themselves.

But read them I sadly must.

Before I do that, I wish to outline the lens from which I am approaching these documents.

From the start I thought that the process was flawed, because we know what God wants us to do – it has been outlined in Novo Millennio Ineunte and in Evangelii Gaudium. The question is how to do it authentically in an Australian context.

While the phases of the Plenary Council up till now have had paperwork reminding us to ‘Listen to what the Spirit is saying’ and ‘What do you think God is calling us to do’, in practice people have been answering very different questions, viz ‘What do you think the Church ought to be doing?’, ‘What would you like to see change in the Church?’, ‘What could we actually, concretely do, towards these themes at diocesan, deanery and parish level?’. Notably absent has been any question about what God wants me to do to contribute, and likewise absent any consideration about where all these mythical people and unlimited resources who are going to make it happen are going to come from (and how to motivate them). In practice people have been told, ‘This Plenary Council is your chance to change things, speak up for what you want, the more vocal you are, the more likely something will happen’.

In such a climate, consensus is not a reliable indicator of the will of the Holy Spirit.

Further absent, and most disturbing, is how often God’s action is left out of the deliberations: it’s a kind of, ‘He can join in if He wants to’ mentality, instead of seeking His input, guidance and power first and foremost. How strange it is when we say we are guided by the Holy Spirit, and then act as though only more committees and layers of hierarchy are needed to achieve anything.

God’s will and purposes have not changed. Always He calls us back to the original blueprint. Even before the Bible existed, family was the foundation of God’s plan. The Bible is the story of the family of Abraham, and it contains the accumulated wisdom about how God wants that family to live in fulness of life. As the family goes, so goes the Church. Where do we get the power to live as members of the family of God? From the Holy Spirit. A new evangelisation is not possible unless there is a new Pentecost, and there is no Pentecost without the Holy Spirit.

Thus for me, Scripture, Family and the Holy Spirit are the non-negotiable essential keys for discovering what God wants us to do in this Great Southern Land of the Holy Spirit. However none of them were referenced in the titles of the 6 Themes of the Plenary Council, and this continues to disturb me greatly.

So as I read (plough through) the 6 Reports, I am going to tally up any references to Scripture, Family and the Holy Spirit, and if I come across any ideas worth pursuing, I will list them.

Obviously it was not an easy task for the Writing and Discernment Groups because they had so many answers to the wrong questions to sift through.

Scripture references are counted when they occur in the body of the text (not in the footnotes) and are recognisable quotations (not cf.’s). Family has to be specifically referenced, references to parts of families eg women, children, elderly etc do not count. All too often we do not view families holistically, which is strange if we believe that each family is a domestic church, and when there is plenty of evidence in the Scripture for God entrusting specific ministries to specific families in perpetuity. Recently during the pandemic lockdown without the usual institutional church structures, we had to live church as domestic churches and began to rediscover this ancient reality. Both ‘Spirit’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ are counted.

Please take these as ‘about right’ numbers and not as exact tallies. Your own tally is likely to be different to mine, but definitely similar.

Theme 1: Missionary and Evangelising
Scripture references: 23
Family references: 6.5
Holy Spirit references: 10
(from page 6) The renewal of our world begins with personal renewal of our lives lived according to the Gospel which invites us to a personal encounter with Jesus, who offers us the gift of God’s love.
(from page 12) For our sacramental initiation to bear fruit, our journey will be one of growing in our relationship with Jesus, the community of His followers and our wider society. This growth is facilitated through the family, the school and the parish community.
(Prioritised Question 6) Given the importance of the family for the missionary and evangelising activity of the Church, how can we best promote a Catholic vision of marriage and family?

Theme 2: Inclusive, Participatory and Synodal
Scripture references: 16
Family references: 4
Holy Spirit references: 7
(from pages 6 & 10 ) Inclusion recognises that every person is a doorway into the mystery that is the Body of Christ.
(from page 9) Our society has become increasingly indifferent, sometimes even hostile, to family life in all its stages, and to those who make family a priority. At each stage of the growth of their children, families experience unique joys but also struggles which, if left unattended, can lead to disengagement and rift, both with each other but also the Church.
(from page 16) Catholics must tirelessly and fearlessly affirm the unique dignity of each and every child, and the inestimable value of the labours of every parent.

Theme 3: Prayerful and Eucharistic
Scripture references: 15
Family references: 6.5
Holy Spirit references: 11
(from page 7) The family is the usual birthplace of faith and the Church recognises that parents are the first and foremost educators of their children (Gravissimus Educationis
(from page 12) When we are formed in the Gospel, God’s people recognise Jesus in daily life.
(from Proposals for Change 1b) Equip each of our Church communities and organisations to support the creation of small communities of faith and life, centred on prayer with Scripture and sharing heart to heart. Encourage these small communities to gather regularly for the development of faith, the sharing of life over a meal and for spiritual nourishment.
(Are not families also small communities?)

Theme 4: Humble, Healing and Merciful
Scripture references: 13
Family references: 1.5
Holy Spirit references: 5
(from page 11) We are invited to witness the wounds of Jesus in those who have been wounded by the Church.
(from page 12) God is asking us to recognise it is restoration to the family of God that brings true wholeness, and that all the faithful have a role to play in the healing of the wounded.
(from page 12) We cannot separate Christ from the wounded: “just as you did it to one of the least of my family, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40).

Theme 5: Joyful, Hope-filled Servant Community
Scripture references: 3
Family references: 5.5
Holy Spirit references: 1
(from page 5) Australia is a land that prizes freedom, equality and egalitarianism, a ‘fair go’ and mateship. However, mental illness, sickness, loneliness, family or financial pressures afflict many Australians.
(from page 8) “the joy of love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church.” (Amoris Laetitia)
(from Challenge 1, page 11) Particular attention should be given to the reasons why so many young people and their families are absent from our parishes, and how schools and parishes might address this concern.

Theme 6: Open to Conversion, Renewal and Reform
Scripture references: 5
Family references: 3.5
Holy Spirit references: 3
(from page 5) “...if the parish proves capable of self-renewal and constant adaptivity, it continues to be ‘the Church living in the midst of the homes of her sons and daughters.’” (Evangelii Gaudium 28)
(from page 11) The consultation highlights the importance of a personal encounter with Christ as the basis of the life of faith, and the need for a supportive and faith-enriching Church community in which to deepen and live out our Catholic identity. Catholics sense a call for greater integration of faith and life, for discerning ways of discipleship — at home and at work, online and in local communities.
(from Question 2a on page 15) How can the structures and ministries of the local churches reach out and be more connected to today’s Catholics in their family life, communities, workplaces, culture and leisure?

                         - - -    - - -   - - -  

If we believe that the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, and the goal of the Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit (St Seraphim of Sarov), then is it not exceedingly strange that the charisms of the Holy Spirit were not referenced in any of the Theme Reports? How can we possibly do the work of the Kingdom of God without prophecy, healing, intercession, discernment of spirits, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, miracles, deliverance, signs & wonders, and those with anointings from the Holy Spirit to preach, teach and evangelise? Working out how to make room for them in normal parish life, and normal family life, is what we need. Because without God all of our efforts will be fruitless, and utter wastes of time.

It is said that where you have been under the greatest attack from the evil one is the very place to expect the greatest victories. All aspects of family life, from conception to the grave, have been under extreme attack. Is not this where we should no longer be on the defensive, but positively placing our resources to assist the growth of families as domestic churches and households of grace?

And neither can happen without returning to the Scriptures and sincerely studying how God relates to families, and how to co-operate with the Holy Spirit.
  
To focus on family, on the Holy Spirit, and about what God has to say about them in the Plenary Council deliberations, with those two aforementioned papal documents for guidance, now that would be truly worthwhile.

#plenarycouncil  #plenarycouncil2020