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

​In the various phases of the Plenary Council process nostalgia for the third rite of reconciliation has re-emerged. It is one of that trio of things that never seems to go away (third rite of reconciliation, married priests, women priests) despite having official definitive pronouncements from Rome to the contrary.

In the Catholic Church the Sacrament of Penance may be celebrated in three different ways, called rites.
The first rite is individual confession to a priest.
The second rite is where a group of people gather together and listen to the Word of God, go through a guided examination of conscience together, then go and confess to one of several priests gathered for the rite, and finish with a hymn of thanksgiving and a priestly blessing; it is also known as the communal rite since it is done as a community of faith.
The third rite is an rite for emergency situations only, and carries the understanding that those who received the sacrament under this rite will present themselves to one of the other rites as soon as practicable after the emergency is over.

The third rite is a provision for situations like going into the frontline of battle at short notice. In such situations it isn’t possible to give the first rite to all those who desire it, due to time constraints, and yet they are facing the danger of death. It was used to good effect by priests who made themselves available for the first responders (firefighters etc.) who were on their way to help those trapped in the Twin Towers in New York in 2001. There is also some rationale for using the third rite in nursing home situations where residents are gathered for Mass and many of them no longer have full cognitive abilities. All of them are facing death in the not so distant future.

But during the 1980s and 1990s somehow the third rite became mainstream in parishes prior to Christmas and prior to Easter. There was normally a single celebration of the third rite in the week or so prior to Christmas and in the week or so prior to Easter. It seemed like the answer to the dwindling numbers of priests (many left the priesthood in the 1970s) and the dwindling numbers of people coming to the first rite of reconciliation. The clergy loved it because they didn’t have to spend so many hours in the confessional. The laity loved it because they didn’t have to say their sins out loud. Consequently, whenever there was a celebration of the third rite in a parish, it was standing room only.

At first the people were reminded that this was a conditional rite, and the condition was that they sought out an opportunity for first rite or second rite as soon as possible. As you may imagine this condition was observed poorly, and towards the end of this era the condition wasn’t mentioned at all.

Filling a church swells the hearts of both priests and laity, and those standing room only experiences are remembered fondly.

However, I’ve never read a single conversion story that includes a third rite of reconciliation as its turning point. I’ve never heard an anecdotal one either. If the third rite of reconciliation was leading people to conversion to Jesus and commitment to Him, then there should be conversion stories a plenty. Use of the third rite pandered to a consumerist approach to faith. All you had to do was show up, sacrifice around an hour of time, and hey presto, you had a clean slate with God. Like a car going through a car wash, and emerging cleaner but unchanged. It didn’t call anyone to missionary discipleship. It felt good, too, the atmosphere at the start was solemn and expectant, and the atmosphere at the end was joyful and light-hearted.

Use of the third rite didn’t lead to an increased use of the first rite, in fact it led to significant decrease in use of the first rite, and significant decrease in the regular parish times for the sacrament of penance.

Worse still, those who had participated in the third rite of reconciliation didn’t know for sure which sins had been forgiven and which sins hadn’t been. No one talks about it, but they all experienced this hopeful unknowing. We all hoped we had completely clean slates with God, but we didn’t know for sure.

With the first rite and the second rite, you do know for sure. That’s because you have described those sins out loud and have heard absolution of those exact sins out loud.

This hopeful unknowing was detrimental because it was unwittingly reducing the sacrament to a sacramental. A sacrament does what it says, independent of the faith of the recipient. (eg. Baptism changes a person into a child of God. Ordination changes a man into a priest.) The effect of a sacramental depends on the faith of the participant. In practice when the third rite of reconciliation was celebrated those with more faith and more contrition had less hopeful unknowing and more confidence in God’s pardon; and those with less faith and less contrition had more hopeful unknowing and less confidence in God’s pardon.

Grace may be free, but it is far from cheap. It was purchased by the sorrows, humiliations, wounds, blood and death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, on the Cross. Accepting the forgiveness and pardon of God, purchased at such a price, is supposed to fill us with such gratitude that we freely decide to devote our whole lives to His service. It is supposed to fill us with a desire for holiness and an ongoing commitment to seeking greater holiness and freedom from sin – with the help of His grace.

While I fully understand the nostalgia of many for those experiences of full churches and joyful and light-hearted atmospheres, it is like the nostalgia that a reformed addict has for his/her addiction of choice. It’s far from helpful, and reminiscing on it does us no good whatsoever.

Thankfully Rome saw the bad fruit coming from the misuse of the third rite of reconciliation and returned it to its original purpose - for large groups in significant danger of imminent death.

Jesus is the good shepherd, and we are His sheep. When a shepherd tends the wounds of his sheep, he does so sheep by sheep, individually. Likewise, Jesus the good shepherd and doctor of our souls treats us individually, one by one, in the sacrament of penance (first rite and second rite). He listens to us (we confess our sins), He diagnoses the source of the soul sickness, He often gives us words of advice and encouragement to continue the battle with sin, He grants us absolution, and He gives us a something to do as a token of our desire to be fully converted to Him (act/s of penance). Jesus is able to do this through the priest, because the priest in the rite of ordination has completely surrendered his life to Jesus, and therefore what the priest does in the sacraments is done ‘in persona Christi’. Yes it is a mystery, but Yes it is also the reality we experience.

Are there lots of conversion stories that feature the first rite of reconciliation? Yes there are, and they are rather plentiful in stories that feature the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (R.C.I.A.) in their conversion stories. Preparing for the first rite of reconciliation prior to the Easter Vigil is often a major undertaking, well beyond a person’s previous experience, dreaded in advance, because it does require confronting the reality of personal sin, but greatly rejoiced over afterwards.

Nothing, but nothing beats individually hearing these priestly words after confessing our sins,
‘God, the Father of mercies, through the death and the resurrection of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, has reconciled the world to Himself, and sent the Holy Spirit among us  for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church, may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’

If we remember Rev 3:16 ‘Since you are only lukewarm, I will spit you out of My mouth’, then it will be easy to reject any practice that smacks of ‘What is the least I’ve got to do to scrape into heaven?’. God wants sons and daughters in deep relationship with Him, and rightly has some antipathy towards those who want His priceless gifts with as little effort as possible and with as little relationship with Him as possible. When a parent only sees a child when they want a cash advance, and not at any other time, the parent still deeply loves that child, but is so disappointed about the might-have-been’s, the shared experiences that didn’t happen, the heart to hearts that never had a chance to begin.

The sacrament of penance makes sense when it is a regular part of a deep and ongoing loving relationship with God. It also makes sense when a prodigal returns and wants to re-start such a relationship with God.

Granted, many of those who came to the third rite of reconciliation no longer knew that more was possible. Many may not have been in a confessional since they were at school. Fear of facing and admitting our sins is a deterrent we all experience. That fear doesn’t go away, but it does lessen if we overcome it on a regular basis. Those who do overcome that fear and confess to a priest (first rite or second rite) experience the wonders of God’s mercy, compassion and help. It is reprehensible that we speak so little of the benefits and blessings of individual confession. It is reprehensible that we promoted the misuse of the third rite of reconciliation and did so little to promote the first and second rites.

Please may this nostalgia for the misuse of the third rite of reconciliation cease. Amen.
​
Please may the wonders of God’s mercy to be found in the first and second rites of reconciliation be proclaimed effectively and without ceasing. Amen.

What might we see as outcomes or potential motions arising from the Plenary Council?

Introduction

It has been a month since the conclusion of the first session of the Plenary Council, and as yet (11 Nov 2021) there has been no public release of the documentation of that session.

That documentation would include at minimum: all of the interventions, all of the minutes, all of the small group reports, and the proposals that had been submitted.

A few weeks ago a friend asked me what we might see actually change as a result of the Plenary Council process. It was a fair question. So I went back through the notes I had taken from the public parts of the first session with that kind of lens. I noticed that most of the public deliberations would never form a proposal or motion because a) they were about matters that you can’t legislate on or b) they were about matters that had yet to morph from motherhood statements into something more tangible.

Even many of the possible outcomes listed below are more likely to take a final form as recommendations than as local canon law.

But it is always easier to start with something rather than a blank page, so please feel free to copy and share it to aid discussion while we await the release of official documentation.
 
List of possible outcomes and possible potential motions
 
Encouragement for parishes to develop small groups, whether they be sharing/accompaniment groups, discussion/bible study groups, or what some people are calling ‘connect groups’ that have a mix of social and catechetical functions.
 
A commitment to inviting a First Nations elder to be on decision making bodies, eg parish pastoral councils and diocesan pastoral councils.
- This would both acknowledge the traditional custodianship of the locality, as well providing a pathway for that traditional custodianship of the locality to continue to be exercised.
 
The establishing of a national church agency to facilitate mutual enrichment between Eastern Rites and Western Rites.
 
Putting more formation opportunities (theological and leadership) online for access by people in outback, rural and regional areas.
 
A longer period of pre-seminary discernment, nation-wide.
- This emerged because so many potential seminarians (religious and clerical) are coming from dysfunctional families and out of periods of substance abuse and non-marital relationships. All existing wounds from trauma and broken relationships need to be healed and addressed before entering the seminary process. Such a healing process takes time, and it also takes time to build enough trust to even be able to talk about such wounds and to allow them come to the surface.
 
Changes to seminary formation that encourage a collaborative approach to parish life.
eg. having some study units done with both lay (men & women) and seminarian participants, and some of the study units taught by women.
- These are measures designed to reduce clericalism. There is widespread dismay at recent crops of seminarians acting like lay people in parishes know nothing and have nothing worthwhile to offer/contribute; and anyone with such a mindset coming into a parish will act like an autocrat and not like a collaborator.
 
Changes to seminary formation which include being in-situ in parishes while online learning takes place, on a regular basis, throughout seminary studies.
- Another measure designed to reduce clericalism.
 
Putting the desire to preach the Gospel as a non-negotiable in the seminarian selection process.
- Without a heart for the mission to make disciples, how could you possibly lead the mission to make disciples?
 
Introduction of ongoing accreditation for clergy and annual professional oversight/reviews.
- This is a practical measure to identify potential problem behaviours and address them before they become abusive behaviours. It has the potential to provide support systems that are currently lacking in diocesan life. When it becomes normative for priests to access these systems, then when issues surrounding loneliness, substance abuse etc do arise, priests can seek the help they need without any social stigma. Regular accountability is needed for the main thing to remain the main thing, and to counteract the tendency to choose the urgent crisis over the important mission.
 
The establishment of a mission support team in all parishes; making disciples being the mission.
- To enable mission to continue and grow despite the inevitable changes of pastors that parishes experience.
 
Developing a nationally accepted process of discernment as to whether a priest has a calling from God to be a bishop or not.
- The length of time where dioceses are without bishops and where archdioceses are without sufficient episcopal vicars must be reduced both for the good of the people of God and for the effectiveness of the mission of the people of God. Starting from scratch with the bishop selection vetting process every time a new apostolic nuncio is appointed isn’t working. The earlier a diocese can spot the rare combination of true leadership talent with true calling from God, the fewer resources will be wasted in training inappropriate candidates, and the fewer clergy will be embittered by hoping for something that’s never going to happen.
 
The addition of leadership training as part of seminary and/or post-seminary formation; using collaborative leadership models.
- Training for leadership - in the sense of bringing out the best in people, helping them work together optimally, and commissioning them into areas of service where they can be most effective for mission due to recognition of gifts, charisms and talents – is currently non-existent. The prevailing model is: find a person who is breathing, available and willing to comply and get them to do what most needs to be done right now. That’s crisis management not leadership: and it does untold damage to both the mission and to the person (mis-match of gifts, charisms and talents causes burnout at minimum and toxicity at worst).
 
There was a ground swell of support (read frustration with a capital F) that in so many areas (eg. parish councils) laity have only a consultative role and never a decision-making role.
But how to formulate that into a motion that the bishops would say yes to? That’s the question!
- Perhaps a threshold of 75+% disagreement with a pastor’s proposals automatically puts that proposal up for review by an independent diocesan panel (composed of canon lawyer, liturgist, theologian, financial advisor etc) – might work.
- It would deal with cases where a) the parish council is right and the pastor is wrong; and b) where parish council is wrong and the pastor is right; - which are the two situations where so much of the frustration currently experienced arises.
- It would also put an incentive in place for working towards collaborative solutions; an incentive which currently doesn’t exist and which is sorely needed.
- Such a review process could also be sought when both pastor and parish council recognise that none of their currently proposed solutions will work and they together decide to seek the wisdom of the review panel.
- Such a review process may also serve as an early warning system to the local bishop as to which of his pastors are not suited to collaborative ministry.
- If both pastor and parish council agree on the wrong solutions… May God set them straight.
 
The issue of women deacons isn’t going away.
- In rural and outback areas, where there is Mass once a fortnight or less, many women are already doing a lot of what a deacon does but without a title. Baptisms, funerals and marriages could be conducted by women deacons in such rural and outback areas. Civil celebrants (male and female) are already doing funerals, weddings and naming ceremonies in secular settings and getting paid. If we want to give our people in rural and outback areas the opportunity for a Catholic rather than a secular celebration of such important life events, the issue of women deacons needs due consideration.
 
Agency leaders (education, hospital, social service etc) need to be chosen/selected because they are skilled, faith-filled, effective leaders who are committed to ongoing formation in mission (making disciples) and in Catholic social teaching.
- We seem to have an existing system that selects for skills and effective leadership first, and with faith, orientation to mission and commitment to Catholic social teaching as optional extras. There could also be a lack of courage in insisting on strong Catholic faith credentials due to a desire to appear tolerant and inclusive together with a desire to not make co-workers with weak Catholic faith credentials feel uncomfortable. But if we are truly committed to the mission of making disciples, then the existing selection system must change.
 
The establishment of a First Nations seminary in Port Pirie diocese (somewhere near Port Augusta to enable ease of remote community rail travel and for geographical closeness to multiple landscape types that are similar to ‘own country’) staffed by First Nations people, with the establishment of a First Nations Ordinariate, and with a mandate to develop a Rite for First Nations use. Studies would be in small blocks of residential learning, interspersed with large blocks of online learning while ‘on country’, with regular in-person visits to country from seminary support staff. (See the Appendix below for more detail).
 
Appendix

As a result of the open sessions from the 1st Assembly of the Plenary Council, I have been reflecting on the lack of First Nations clergy, and on the obstacles that First Nations peoples face to both entering and persevering in seminary life.

So I have begun to dream of a First Nations seminary, based somewhere near Port Augusta, in the diocese of Port Pirie, and to dream of the development of a First Nations Ordinariate and of the organic development from both of these of a First Nations rite (like the Anglican use rite).

As it stands at the moment, potential First Nations seminarians face at least 2 big obstacles,
having to leave country for extended periods of time,
and being in a city environment far from the landscapes of home;
as well as not having a curriculum structure which permits times of walkabout.

So I have begun to dream of a First Nations seminary, staffed as fully as possible with First Nations people in leadership, teaching and administration with guest lecturers on the major theological disciplines.

I have begun to dream that such a seminary would also be eventually open to members of First Peoples from across the world; tribal Africa, native American, tribal South America, Inuit, ethnic Chinese etc.

I have begun to dream of a First Nations seminary that has short blocks of residential learning, 3-4 weeks long, interspersed with 2-6 months long online learning while living ‘on country’, with moral, technical and learning support provided from the seminary. Many First Nations seminarians would be well familiar with School of the Air procedures. During the times of ‘on country’ learning, visitors from the seminary would arrive on a regular basis to learn first-hand about the cultural group the seminarian belongs to.

I have begun to dream of a First Nations seminary that permits seminarians to learn at their own pace, faster in some subjects, slower in others.

I have begun to dream that the location of such a First Nations seminary would be near Port Augusta in the diocese of Port Pirie for 2 reasons:

1. Because in that locality you are never more than an hour’s drive away from salt plains, wetlands, billabongs, grass plains, salt water, desert, and mountains (Flinders Range); and therefore, not far from something that resembles country of origin for First Nations students.
2. Because Port Augusta is easily reached by rail by most outback and remote communities, via the Ghan, the Indian Pacific, and the various rail networks that connect to them, giving relatively cheap, safe and direct transport to quite a central national location.

To these reasons could also be added a 3rd reason, the rejuvenation of the local townships by the seminary and utilization of buildings erected in times past that are currently falling into disuse (eg the leftover building complexes from past mining eras).

...............................................................................
For a print-friendly version, use the document below
​5 x A4 pages 

Write Non Fiction In November : #WNFIN Day 20
​
Warning: enter Part 2 of this rant at your own risk. There'll be more liturgical and Catholic jargon, but hopefully some useful stuff as well.

On the plus side, our visiting knowledgeable person gave us some good reminders:

At the opening prayer at Mass (otherwise known as the Collect) after the 'Let us pray' there is a short pause for us to add in our own intentions silently before the priest goes on with the prayer – having gathered all those intentions in and transforming them into a united prayer. It is a good reminder, but most of us have shopping list lengths of intentions and there's really only time to remember one of them at the opening prayer. Practically, if you've got a long list, it has to be offered either before Mass starts, or while the gifts are being prepared (while all the to-ing and fro-ing with the bread, water and wine is going on), or both.

Are we really listening to the prayers we are saying Amen to? Because many of them promise that we will keep various commitments. How intentional are our Amen's?

During the Creed, whether we are praying the Nicene or Apostles versions, at the words that recall the Incarnation of Jesus we are to bow. At the solemnities of Christmas and at the Annunciation that bow becomes a genuflection. It is a good reminder. Remembering to bow at the right place is the hard part, but doing the bow transforms that long prayer of the Creed into something intentional and wonderful and away from rote and routine.

Now onto the less cut and dried stuff:

The renewed words of the Confiteor have 'through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault' with the action 'all strike their breast'. You can interpret this rubric as one strike of the breast, but I don't think it precludes the three times that fits with the words which most people are doing. Three times helps focus my soul much better than once, and I hope they will one day knock enough sense into me to view sin in its true ugly light and do more to avoid it. For someone who loves, a single action of contrition is never enough.

Who or what do we bow to, especially if you are a reader coming up to proclaim the scriptures? Our knowledgeable person said forget the priest, bow to the altar. I've got a problem with that, and yet it isn't a simple black and white situation. How do we balance "Christ is present in the liturgy in four unique ways: These ways are: • especially, in the Eucharist broken and shared; • in the person of the minister; • in the Word of God; and • in the assembled people of God (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, CSL #7)" with the words from the 5th preface of Easter, "Christ …showed Himself the Priest, the Altar and the Lamb of sacrifice". Note that those four unique ways do not include the altar, and yet when the incense is in use, the priest, the altar, the people, the paschal candle (if lit), the gifts, the Gospel and the cross all get incensed. On the other hand, outside the liturgy we reverence the tabernacle. For me, if the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says that Jesus is uniquely present in the priest, then the priest gets the bow. Doing both altar and priest, or altar only, is a confusion that we don't need. All of the four unique ways either move or are moved during the liturgy, they are active presences not passive ones.

Our knowledgeable person also had a narrative for the priestly actions: at the presentation of the gifts: set them aside; at the consecration: show them, at the doxology; offer them. Low…medium…high. For centuries upon centuries the action of the priest during the consecration has been called the elevation. The newly consecrated bread and the newly consecrated wine are to be lifted up high enough for all of us to see and to adore. So no, this idea doesn't sit right at all.

The purification rites after communion are where there is a lot of grey and difference from one place to another. In a perfect world it probably should take place at the credence table rather than at the altar (like in the kitchen rather than at the dining table). But that doesn't take much account of the degree of mobility (and health) the priest has, nor the amount of confidence he has that it will be done correctly out of his direct line of sight.

Another thing our knowledgeable person had to say was that when the last people have been to communion, those dispensing the precious blood should minister the remaining consecrated wine to each other. Yes, I agree that it is much better for the remains to be consumed standing still near the credence table, than while walking back to the credence table. No argument there. But there is an argument to say that the precious blood was ministered to the 'extraordinary ministers of holy communion' at the time the cup was entrusted to them (part 1) and that any remains are just a part 2 of that original action. The former definitely looks better, and may reinforce that we don't take but receive the Eucharist, the latter is usually a matter of practicality. For example: What if the other cup bearers were already empty and sitting down, and you are the only one left. This is not an unusual situation. Do you go seeking one of them and making a fuss to get them to minister the remainder of the precious blood to you, or to coax them to have the rest of it?

Our knowledgeable person told us off for having both a brazier of incense as well as a thurible during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and benediction. On closer inspection the thurible was there to incense the monstrance at the beginning of exposition and then it went out in procession, only to return to incense the monstrance at benediction. It was active. The brazier was a passive presence of incense throughout the whole time, indicative that our prayers were rising the whole time. Maybe that wasn't as obvious because the Mass that day had extra solemnity and length and the time of exposition was shorter as a result.

Also getting a pasting was hymn choice. The green hymn books we have for exposition only contain a small selection of hymns, and an even smaller selection of them do we actually know how to sing. The green books are purpose designed for exposition/benediction. It was a day of major parish thanksgiving, so the sung version of the Te Deum (Holy God we praise Thy Name…) was appropriate, and more appropriate at the beginning than at the end so that more people could join in that thanksgiving. Tell me how the Church's official prayer of high thanksgiving (Te Deum) is inappropriate at Exposition/Benediction when 'Eucharist' translates as 'Thanksgiving'. Is it more or less Eucharist-y  than 'Jesus, my Lord my God my all'?

'Go the Mass is ended'. Our knowledgeable person's take on this is, 'If I said go, then Go!'. Jesus said 'Go' to the ten lepers He healed, but only the one who stopped to thank Him before 'going' was the one Jesus held up as an example we should follow. The Saints tell us that lingering with Him in prayer after Mass ends is the most fruitful time of prayer, and are we to be flung straight out into the secular car park after an encounter with the Lord? It doesn't quite work, does it? Yes, I know, a lot of people have already exited before during and after the 'Go', and for reasons of various validity, but that doesn't make it the most blessed or most perfect thing to do. We all eventually 'Go', but a recessional hymn of thanksgiving sung in unity beats an instrumental solo played during a mad scramble for the exit door. I want to be one of the ones who stopped to thank Him, don't you? And to do it in unity. 

End of rant.

Moral of story: Don't be hasty in making liturgical judgements. You normally don't have the full story and there are often very good counter arguments for why things have been done in a way that seems imperfect or lacking to you. Put love in first place because the essence of liturgy is love and not the liturgical correctness that brow beats a brother or sister in Christ.

Write Non Fiction In November : #WNFIN Day 19
​
Warning: enter this rant at your own risk. I'll try to keep it as civil as possible, but I'm likely to fail. As the old joke goes, at least with a terrorist you can negotiate, but not with a liturgist.

To any reader who doesn't have a good grasp of the Catholic Mass, I apologise in advance because there's going to be lots of unexplained jargon.

Yesterday a knowledgeable person gave a talk on liturgy. This talk followed on from a special occasion Mass at which this knowledgeable person was the principle celebrant.

During the Mass things felt a little 'off', initially I thought it was just due to the normal adjustments that happen with someone different leading. When the talk began, it then became obvious that there was more behind it. Said knowledgeable person hadn't really come to enter into the liturgical celebration of our special day with us, said person was counting in detail each liturgical infraction committed in his opinion. The talk was going to be a step by step run through of where we had blown it.

On so many levels this was wrong/anger inducing.

For starters the parish had been under the rule of another knowledgeable person for many years, one who was not afraid to publicly correct and infractions immediately. It seems both knowledgeable persons are probably not the best of mates, (grudges from one about the other giving poor grades in seminary etc), but you shouldn't take that out on the people.

Secondly there was no seeking to understand the reasons why the minutiae are done a certain way here.

Thirdly there was a delight in unsettling people, first of all in the liturgical celebration itself, ie. shaking them out of routine, and then introducing confusion into the minds and hearts of those present and leaving them wondering where the actual truth is – given that these two knowledgeable persons had quite differing interpretations of them.

Above all else it wasn't done in love. If it had been done in a Holy Spirit inspired way people would have left feeling uplifted and encouraged even if acknowledging that some changes could and should be made. After all the touchstone of when the Holy Spirit has been at work are love, joy , peace, patience, kindness etc – not the negative emotions, confusion and murderous thoughts that actually happened (some were inspired during the talk to air long held liturgical grudges about each other's habits).

You see, if it had been done in love there would have been some humble respect for the liturgical culture that had developed in this place, and a desire to learn as much from what God had been doing in and through us as to teach us.

Let's get down to brass tacks and provide some counter arguments to what the knowledgeable person was imparting, and some support for the good bits.

There's no question that the option to substitute the Apostles Creed for the Nicene Creed has been abused. It should only be an option in Lent and Easter where the link with the renewal of baptismal promises is closest, not as a way to save time.

There's no question that using Eucharistic Prayer II all the time, again because it is the quickest, is unhealthy for both priest and people.

Encouraging the reading of the scriptural texts prior to Mass is always a helpful thing to do.

Questioning the use of missals during Mass was dubious. For starters, you cannot expect the people to do their part with the entrance antiphons, communion antiphons etc on one hand and then to not use their missals for everything else. That's asking them to switch between two modes frequently, and to do it successfully.  The argument put forward was that reading the scriptures in their missals as they were proclaimed was more passive than just getting the input from the proclaimer. As a parent I know that a child doesn't have to be sitting still with their complete attention on me to be truly listening. They can listen to a story equally well by playing with a toy truck or in a sandpit, and for some the story will be imprinted better that way. We know that faith comes from what is heard, (Rom 10:17) so the audio part is more important than the visual part, and if reading along in the missal helps you to decode the proclaimer's accent, lack of audible volume, or lack of spoken punctuation, then go for it. Sure the proclaimers of the Gospel would feel better if all eyes were on them, but blanket judgements about what constitutes the more or most active ways of participation aren't possible – that's something for each individual to work out with God.

This almost fiendish desire to throw the congregation a curve ball and to mix up the elements of the ritual without prior warning is of concern. The other knowledgeable person liked to do that too. How petty to take delight in seeing people scrambling to find the right page because you decided to do a votive Mass with a special preface or one of the Eucharist Prayers for Reconciliation! Yes, the desire to shake up the routine a little and give us poor sods some variety from the treasury of the Church is laudable, but not at the expense of unity and good order. To lead the assembly in worship is to desire to serve God and to serve His people, not to show off how clever and in control you are and how insignificant and ignorant they are. The more loving thing to do, the thing that will bring greater unity and flow is to give the people a heads-up as to which proper, preface, Eucharistic prayer and Eucharistic acclamation you are going to use. When and how you give that heads-up is up to you.

Posture during the Our Father: Yes, some people like to hold hands as a symbol of unity as the Our Father is prayed. Some don't. As long as it is a free choice where's the problem? Others object to those who pray with their hands partially raised, saying that only the priest is allowed to use that posture. It is the ancient 'orans' posture of prayer, how all Jews prayed not just the Rabbis and Elders. Get over it. If it helps you enter into this prayer of Jesus more fully, go for it.

The trouble with most of these liturgical controversies is that it divides people into two groups, 'the clever ones who know what to do and what not to do' and 'the ignorant ones'. They destroy both love and unity, the two things that God most wants to see among us. Such schoolyard pettiness of 'I'm better than you' has no place in the sacred liturgy. The things that we must do are in the rubrics, they are non-negotiable and yet they need to be taught with sensitivity and kindness. For the rest, let love be the guide, the kind that seeks to understand why an action has been chosen, and to work together to value the good and to together to seek the best for all.
​
There's lots more… (sadly)... but that's enough for today.

Let's dream for a minute about what a diocese would look like if each of its priests was in a place of ministry that played to their strengths. Less burnout. More joy. More effectiveness.
 
This is possible.

It no longer has to be a 'seat of the pants, gut feel, let's hope the Holy Spirit is inspiring our choices' set of decisions. It will still require prayer, and pondering, and skill, but the chances of getting the right match of priest to place of ministry are dramatically higher with the following tools.
 
…However you will still have to take into account musical and artistic ability, relevant hobbies, and attempt to match priests to socio-economic areas that they can relate to.
 
First Tool: Clifton StrengthsFinder – Catholic Edition. If you know the top 5 signature themes of your priests you will make better decisions. Think of them as transferable skill sets. 
 
Second Tool: Strengths based Leadership. The 34 possible signature themes can be split into 4 domains, Executing, Influencing, Relationship building and Strategic thinking. If all 4 areas are covered by a leadership team, then the place is going to hum. If one or more domain area is missing, the blind-spot areas will reduce effectiveness and cause troubles. For example, if you have two priests in a parish and neither of them has people skills (relationship building skills) attendance at Sunday Mass will fall and complaints to the bishop will increase.
 
Third Tool: Knowing how parish size impacts on the gifts the pastor in leadership needs to be effective. This gem was highly recommended by Fr Mallon in Divine Renovation. It is 14.5 pages long, but its implications are huge. A small parish will thrive with a pastor in leadership who is high in relationship building skills. A medium size parish needs a pastor in leadership with administration skills, who can do a bit of everything domain-wise. A large church needs a pastor in leadership with a drive for vision and mission, who will focus on preaching and strategy and do very little individual pastoral ministry. A very large church requires more of the same, with an emphasis on articulating vision.
 
This will make sense if we look at some mythical examples.

I grabbed a random number generator and found 5 numbers between 1 and 34, and then matched the numbers to the 34 signature themes in alphabetical order. This produced mythical priests A, B, C and D.
 
Mythical Priest A:
Harmony/R, Analytical/S, Empathy/R, Individualization/R, Developer/R
That's 4 themes in Relationship building. If this priest had to take charge of a parish, for both to thrive it would need to be a small one.
Empathy is the number one skill needed to be effective in pastoral care.
​Empathy plus Harmony means you would shine in hospital based pastoral care.
But this person has even more than that. He'd be absolutely in his element in prison ministry, and ministering to those with addictions or dealing with domestic abuse victims.
If you trained him up to spot the 34 themes, he would be brilliant at getting parishioners into the ministries that God made them for.
 
Mythical Priest B:
Belief/E, Responsibility/E, Strategic/S, Communication/I, Command/I
That's no people skills, but a powerful leader who could take on a large complex parish.
Sadly without the people skills he's not likely to ever get a pointy hat.
He would be a very good preacher. However dissuading him from erroneous beliefs would not be easy, so it would be important to give him good formation from people he can respect.
Belief, Command and Strategic are the building blocks for a good exorcist, so it would be worthwhile sending him to exorcist school in Rome to test whether he is called to that ministry.

Putting Priest A together with Priest B as an assistant would cover all 4 domains, and they could bond over analysis and strategy. They could make a very effective team, as long as it was explained to both of them that they were chosen to complement each other, and how they could best connect with each other.
 
Mythical Priest C:
Discipline/E, Connectedness/R, Learner/S, Communication/I, Maximiser/I
If this person wasn't a priest he would have the raw material to be a best-selling author.
Having a foot in all 4 domains he could lead a medium parish.
However he would shine as a faculty member of a seminary, and could write a book a year. The rhythm of seminary life would suit him, students would enjoy listening to him, he'd be the one to keep the Old Boys union going and maintain contact with past students, he'd be very good at social media, and his desire to learn would fuel the next book while the maximiser will ensure it will be full of excellence.
He has the raw material to become the next Fr James Martin SJ.
 
Mythical Priest D:
Includer/R, Maximiser/I, Analytical/S, Activator/I, Restorative/E
Having a foot in all 4 domains, he could lead a medium parish too.
But if you really wanted him to shine, you would send him into broken parishes to get them on their feet again. He'd analyze the root causes, delight in the hard work needed to make the healing happen, get parishioners involved in the process, get started quickly and enthuse people to aim for excellence and show how possible it was to achieve. It is possible that he would be frustrated in any assistant priest role, because he needs to make things happen
 
Do you agree that if these priests were given places of ministry like these, that the mythical diocese they belong to would be a couple of steps down the road from maintenance to mission?
 
Conversely, can you imagine the disaster if you sent mythical priest B as parish priest of a small parish?

​For a print friendly version....

On Monday 13 June and Tuesday 14 June 2016, the parish of St Benedict's Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, ran a 2 day conference to share their experiences of successful parish renewal. Using #DR16 will get you an overview of the conference via Twitter or Facebook.
 
I wasn't able to attend in person, but I was able to participate through the Livestream video of the plenary sessions which were uploaded to the internet. http://livestream.com/accounts/6379109
 
Here follows a rough transcript of that Plenary Part 4 and then my own response to it. Why bother? Not everyone likes getting their information via video, and going through the process of taking notes and typing them up enables the message to get internalized more and shared with others, and it also forces me to go looking for the background information and links to round things out. And there's no guarantee how long the Livestream option will be available for either.
 
This session could have been entitled 'Teamwork'
 
It was given by Patrick Lencioni via pre-taped video. He is founder and president of The Table Group, a firm dedicated to helping leaders improve their organizations’ health since 1997.He's also a co-founder of Amazing Parish.
 
Teamwork is critical in a parish.
 
In parishes there are 5 common misconceptions:
•That the pastor must be involved with and do everything. The truth is that parishes are dynamic and complex, and that each pastor needs a team to help him.
•That parish leaders should not push back at each other. The truth is that we do need to push back, but to do so with passion and love.
•That no one should ever leave a parish. The truth is that someone will always opt out. We cannot try to please everyone.
•That a parish must do everything. The truth is that you cannot do everything. A parish that won't stop doing everything will not be able to do the most important things well.
•That if I work in a parish that I don't have to work on Sundays. The truth is that Sunday is when all our customers are there, and we need to be there.
 
Teamwork
A pastor is the leader of the team and of the parish. Each pastor needs a team: a small group that shares the responsibility of the parish with him. It does not consist of every person on staff. It will have some employees and some volunteers. A pastor's leadership team is not the same as a parish council.
 
The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team.
 
Trust.
It is the foundation of a team. Lack of trust makes a team ineffective. Trust requires vulnerability of team members. The type of trust I am talking about is not predictive trust, the kind that is built up over time, but vulnerability trust. It requires that we be genuinely vulnerable with each other, so that we can say to each other, 'I messed up', 'I'm sorry'. This type of trust is counter cultural. It is critical that people get vulnerable with each other so that honest feedback can be given. Jesus was vulnerable to each other and He was God! If we keep trying to protect ourselves, that's when we allow dangerous things to enter our team.
 
Learning to trust is the most important thing to do as a team. This is an easy 15-20 minute personal history exercise that helps build trust: Go around the team, and tell each other where you grew up, where you came in the family order, and what was the most difficult challenge of your childhood. So many of us have never had these conversations with each other. It is a way of seeking like St Francis to understand each other more than to be understood. Knowing this background helps us to attribute how they are and how they do things to their backgrounds and not to bad motives.
 
Next you need some kind of tool eg Myers Briggs, Working Styles, DISC, StrengthsFinder to help people understand their personality type and to help understand how God made them. Everyone should know what the strengths, weaknesses and charisms of their pastor are eg ENTJ, ISPF. Knowing that gives you permission to say, 'Hey, Father, I think you might be steamrollering us a bit, slow down please.' Or if he is an ENFP like me, his prayer is 'O Lord, please help me focus on the things I need to do….Oh look..a bird!!' (I get easily distracted.) When you know these things it becomes safe, helpful, and your duty to call them out on stuff – and that's a very liberating thing.
 
Conflict. Trust.
Fear of conflict is the biggest barrier to church groups everywhere.
Conflict is a good thing on a team, it permits passionate disagreement in pursuit of the truth and for the best possible answer. Truth is what we are after. When we avoid conflict, we push it below the surface and out into the hallway and parking lot – and that's when conflict around an issue ferments into conflict around a person unless it is dealt with properly. Our desire for peace and harmony almost always turns into bad things behind the scenes. Our intentions are good, but destructive if we misunderstand the benefits of conflict. When there is trust between members, conflict is a good thing.
 
Commitment. Conflict. Trust.
When the time comes and you've got to make a decision, if there has been conflict, then everyone will buy into and commit to the decision. That's because everyone has had their say and has felt heard. If they don't weigh in, they won't buy in. If there has been healthy conflict, then there will be no hesitation in supporting the decision that gets made by the leader.
 
Accountability. Commitment. Conflict. Trust.
A healthy team holds each other accountable. It is the loving thing to do, to confront someone and ask them to take another approach to a situation. Too many say to themselves 'I will leave it to the pastor to sort out'. But the pastor should not be the primary source of accountability in the leadership team of a parish. You need to turn to each other and hold each other accountable. The thing is, if you wait and get the pastor involved, he often doesn't tell the person 'in trouble' who the source of the complaint was. 'Hey, I've heard … and …. isn't going so well'; 'Who told you?' : 'I don't want to say' is the kind of dialogue that breeds politics, mistrust and resentment. It is more powerful to say to someone, 'As a brother and sister in Christ, hey I think you can do better.' We owe it to Christ and to the Church to do the best that we can.
 
If the first three are in place (Trust, Conflict, Commitment) then it is actually rather easy and natural to hold each other accountable. I'm not good at doing this, because I want them to like me. I used to think it was because I cared about them and I didn't want to hold them accountable because I would make them feel bad. Actually it is because I don't want them to think that I am mean. So really I was refraining for myself and not for them. If you love someone, you have to hold them accountable for their sake. You have to be able to say, 'we are going to have this difficult conversation because it is the right thing to do' even if they might temporarily be upset with me. Accountability is critical. It is the biggest problem we find on teams.
 
Results. Accountability. Commitment. Conflict. Trust.
When people are held accountable they will focus on actually accomplishing something eg revenue, profits, customer satisfaction. In a parish the result is always to bring more people to Christ for their salvation. There is nothing more important to hold people accountable for doing a good job around.
 
Results are the result of the entire parish, not just the music, children's liturgy, finance or admin. It has to be everything. When we come together as a team we have to take our individual ministry hats off and say that everything that happens in this parish is part of my purview as a leader. We are not to be in silos, dividing up responsibilities – that's what a golf team does. We need to be more like a basketball team that shares the load and enters into each other's responsibilities out of love.
 
This is what a great team does.
They are vulnerable with each other so that they have the courage to engage each other in conflict. That conflict allows them to make a commitment, a real, true commitment. That allows them to have the courage to hold each other accountable and be committed to that, and allows them to ensure that the entire parish will be successful – not just their own ministry or area.
 
These are the 5 functional things that a good team does OR the 5 dysfunctional things (if you take the opposite) as a team.
 
I really hope and pray that everyone at this conference and the others that you meet learn to do this well. They are all biblical. Certainly the apostles had conflict with each other, and they committed to decisions about the Church. They sharpened each other as iron sharpens iron, and as a result brought people to Christ. Of course, only the Holy Spirit can help us do this, but we have to co-operate with Him in all this.
 
I encourage you to go into a period of prayer, to pray for the courage to do this and for the insight to understand where you need to work on this as a team. Ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to be the team that God wants you to be. Thank you for your service to the Church. God bless you.
 
Fr James Mallon then spoke:
 
Aquinas said that grace builds on nature. We act like human beings whether we are at home, at work, at church or at play – wherever we are. There is something to be learned from the business world because grace builds on nature – it doesn't replace nature. We need to begin and end with prayer, and pray without losing heart – but simply praying more is not going to prevent the dysfunction that prevents God from working in and through us. So anthropological insights teach us that we can lean into these insights and learn from them. And then we cry out to God for His grace, enlightenment and strength.
 
Everyone gathered here has gathered as leaders of parishes. I'm very glad that there are pastors here with teams of people – however you define that team presently. Over the last year or two when we have had requests to go and speak, and I have to choose between speaking to priests only or to priests with teams I am choosing priests with teams because we have to somehow breakout of this idea of doing it as a priest by himself. Why? Because we need that experience of working with a team.
 
Tomorrow Ron Huntley and I will talk about our experience of implementing this teaching. But I can tell you, that since we have been working out of this model with a leadership team, that as a pastor I am making better decisions than I ever made when it was just me making them. We are making decisions better than I ever did.
 
And when we move into a missionary model of church, you see we are striking off into a different direction. I like to use this image of a cabin and a wooden shack filled with wood, and the job of the person is to go from the cabin to the wood stack and back through the snow, bringing the needed wood. The easiest way to get through the snow is to walk in the footsteps of the previous person's snow tracks. I see that as a model for the maintenance church. You could flip out and replace priests every 4 or 5 years, and he would step into the tracks of the guy before him and continue going back and forth to get wood. 40-50 years ago this model worked. But if we are to be a missionary church we need to turn around and see those woods over there, that's where we are going – and the truth is – we don't know how to do it.
 
In his talk, Rick spoke about his shock that priests are not trained in leadership. Let me tell you how much training in leadership I got. I loved the seminary. We got great theological training, but we got zero training in leadership. Zero. And we trained for a model of church 'in Jerusalem' and we were 'in Babylon'. We have to have the courage to say, 'I don't know what I am doing any more and honestly I am terrified.' I feel trapped because I feel I shouldn't say that, because we are supposed to have all the answers. It is not just our priests. In leadership it is our job to set and shape the culture of any organization. If we want to be healthy – as a church then we need to be healthy. If we want a church based on community, trust and vulnerability, we need to live lives where there is trust and vulnerability. It begins with us.
 
In this time of prayer we ask the Lord again, we ask His grace to build you a solid foundation of nature. Once again we are going to take some time in prayer and call on the Holy Spirit. You might think : hey they call on the Holy Spirit a lot around here. Yes we do. If you've read the book, one of our stated values is the experience of the Holy Spirit – and we meant it. We actually do strive to do this all the time; to call on the Holy Spirit to help us.
 
I invite us to stand together, and close our eyes. We have all had moments when we know we haven't been at our best, when instead of bringing health to our team, parish etc we became toxic. Did you know that in Gallup's estimation an actively disengaged parishioner is the opposite of an engaged parishioner? It takes 4 engaged parishioners to neutralize the acidity of an actively disengaged parishioner. 4 healthy to neutralize the effects of 1 toxic person. And sometimes we can be toxic. I have been toxic. In our disagreements as staff and teams if we don't deal with conflict on issues it becomes conflict about people. Conflict without trust is politics. If that happens, then the evil one can use that conflict without trust to his advantage. If you are here as a team with disagreements, resentments, unspoken things, no trust, we ask the Lord to help you to resolve them and to shine His light. We ask Him to liberate and free us of these things and help us to see. As someone said, the problem with blind spots is that you don't know that you've got them We've all got them. Let us cry out to God. Lord we want this. Lord we believe that You can truly bring us to a place of health. Reveal to us the areas where we need repentance, a need for forgiveness, a need to lower the walls and choose trust, to choose to be vulnerable. Let us pray this song together:
 
All who are weak. All who are weary. All who are tired. All who are thirsty. All who have failed. All who are broken. Come to the Rock. Come to the Fountain. Come to the Lord. All who have sailed the river of darkness, Come to the sea, Come to be set free. All who have climbed the mountains of heartache, Reach to the stars. If you lead me Lord I will follow. Where you lead me Lord I will go. Heal me Lord, I will follow. Where you lead me Lord, I will go.
 
Lord we come to You tonight and confess, sometimes we can indeed be toxic, resentful, suspicious, jealous, we can be fearful of one another. We can harbour hurts and unforgiveness. We ask that You wash us clean and that You forgive us. That You free us from all the destructive things that prevent us from being the church that we are called to be. We ask You to come and heal us and to set us free. We lift up to Him the times that we have not been instruments of health but of toxicity. We turn to You and bring to you our fear of vulnerability. We often wear masks over our broken and woundedness, and we hunger for love. We hide and mask our weakness and our uncertainties. As Your priests we can be guilty of this – and yet be so alone in our leadership. We ask for the grace to be vulnerable within us, and ask that He would break anything that prevents us from being so. In the Acts of the Apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, after no small dissention, they agreed. They hammered things out and engaged in conflict over issues. Lord convict us of any one person we need to forgive and any one to whom we need to go and ask for forgiveness. Bring to mind our need for reconciliation with one another. We ask for the healing grace of God, and for forgiveness and reconciliation in our teams. Go and find 2 other people and share with one another something the Lord has spoken to you tonight.
 
…………………………………………………………..
 
My own response
 
Oh I want to be part of a team like that, don't you? On our own we can accomplish so little. Together we can accomplish so much. However I still have plenty of bruises left from the last significant team I was part of, where so often I felt ignored and not listened to. Maybe if I hadn't been the only Deliberative in the group, and the others had understood the positive aspects of that signature theme, it might have been very, very different.
 
So often we only find out the context of someone's life from the eulogy at his/her funeral (as long as the eulogy contains some relevant content). Sadly it is often only then, listening to their eulogy that so many aspects of their life and behaviour begin to make sense. Thus I think Patrick Lencioni's idea about learning about each other's formative years is pure gold.
 
How good it is to hear that conflict is a good thing and not a bad thing in a healthy team. To be surrounded by 'yes men' is a very bad thing for a leader, even though superficially it simplifies their lives.
 
As a result of this talk I had to go and confront a situation, which on the face of it was very poor example to others. I found out that there were good reasons behind the seemingly strange behaviour. Now I don't get aggravated each time I see that situation re-occur.
 
I've been on the receiving end of the 'someone's got a problem with you doing xyz, so fix it, but I'm not going to tell you who'. You spend all your time wondering who it was and narrowing down a list of suspects, all of which destroys peace of mind and the wide net of suspicion destroys trust. You feel judged, not loved.
 
I've also been in meetings where some people are only there for their own agenda and the perceived needs of their own ministry role and have no interest in anything unrelated to that agenda. It is like trying to herd cats, and it means that lots of other issues don't get the attention they need and deserve. Having a mindset for the benefit of all is crucial.
 
I really liked Fr Mallon's analogy of the regular trek to wood stack and the uncharted expedition to the woods.
 
This is a very hard paradigm shift for priests, going from solo leader to leader with team accountability. They need our support and encouragement – and especially our prayers. Be sure that the parishioners who care about the parish as much as you do are just as frustrated and debilitated by your solo leadership as you are.
 
How refreshing it is to see the Holy Spirit made a constant active partner in the life and mission of the parish! So often we say that God's in control, but then turn around and run a meeting without any prayer content, or with a short notional prayer for appearance' sake. How much I would like to see more reliance and calling on the Holy Spirit and less responses that make me feel like I'm an alien from outer space when I suggest it.