New Developments on Stories Featured in Catholic World Report

Preaching to the converted

The trend toward secularism—and away from the Catholic faith—is easy to document. A growing number of Australians—the number is now 16.6 percent, and climbing—mark their census returns "No Religion"; another 9 percent fall into the "No Stated Religion" category. Of all 20-29-year-olds, 26.9 percent claim to have "No Religion," as do 24.9 percent of 30-39-year-olds. Of this category, 20 percent are former Catholics.

The general response to the Statement of Conclusions, however, has not been so easy to measure. The document’s call for a curbing of general absolution—which has been a generally accepted practice in some dioceses—is clear-cut enough. But many of the other directives, such as the call for elimination of liturgical abuses and the appointment of soundly orthodox diocesan officials, will require zeal and courage on the part of individual bishops—as distinct from lip-service and pious platitudes, let alone foot-dragging or opposition.

However, the early responses by bishops and their officials have turned out to be predictably varied, along ideological lines. In a sense, the Statement was a case of "preaching to the converted."

A varied response

Those bishops most receptive to the concerns of the Pope and the Vatican—such as Archbishop George Pell of Melbourne and Archbishop Barry Hickey of Perth—had already anticipated many of the Statement’s directives; when the document itself appeared, they could only feel vindicated, and encouraged to continue the more vigorous implementation of their policies. Archbishop Pell, for example, had previously called for a cessation of general absolutions; has embarked on a project to put new religion texts in the schools; and continues to appoint people of strong orthodox faith to key positions. Archbishop Hickey has been encouraging priestly vocations, with considerable success.

Other bishops in more liberal dioceses—notably in Adelaide and in much of Queensland—seemed less than enthusiastic about the Statement’s candid analysis of the weaknesses in Australian Catholicism, and its analysis of the type of leadership that now was required of them as bishops. Their initial statements of support for the document did not lead to vigorous action. It was one thing to be captivated for a time by the atmosphere of the Holy See, and quite another to be surrounded by their worried liberal advisers back home.

Almost before the Statement appeared, Australian Catholic liberals were organizing to put pressure on the bishops, urging them to proceed slowly with any reforms. There were also suggestions that the bishops had been "am bushed" by Rome, and that Rome had a distorted view of the state of Australian Catholicism based on the complaints of "right-wing" Catholics.

A joint three-day conference of the National Council of Priests and the Leaders of Religious Institutes, held in Sydney in February to discuss the Statement of Conclusions, issued a statement of its own which strongly disputed the Vatican document. The conference statement flatly rejected the call for a curb on general absolution, and criticized the Statement’s failure to address the question of clerical celibacy. It complained that the Vatican’s "overwhelmingly negative estimation" of Australian Catholicism did not reflect their own "broad experience of the Church here." The National Council of Priests chairman, Father Gary Russell of Brisbane, alleged that the Vatican had been given the wrong impression of Australian Catholicism by "extremist" members of the Church.

An examination of conscience

These were curious views, since the Statement of Conclusions reflected the in put of 13 Australian bishops, not merely the imposed views of the Vatican. Arch bishop Francis P. Carroll of Canberra and Goulburn—not particularly noted for his conservatism—had been one of the bishops involved in the preparatory meetings for the Synod of Oceania. In a lengthy letter to his clergy, reproduced in full in the diocesan paper, Catholic Voice, the archbishop offered a revealing ac count of how the meetings between the Australian bishops and Vatican cardinals were carefully organized to encourage broad consultation. It was by no means a case of the bishops being am bushed by the Curia or the Curia acting at the behest of "extremist" or "right-wing" Australian Catholics. Arch bishop Carroll ex pressed agreement with Cardinal Ratzinger that the Statement was "a fair ac count of the dialogue" between the Australian episcopal representatives and the Vatican cardinals.

Despite claims as to the "negativity of the Pope’s address and the Statement of Conclusions document," said Arch bishop Carroll, "if one reads them objectively . . . one can scarcely quarrel with their major points." He added: "In some specific areas there is clearly a call to an examination of conscience on behalf of bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful. These calls need to be seriously heeded, if and when necessary. . . ."

Chris McGillion, Australian correspondent for the London Tablet, said that a number of Australia’s more liberal bishops were unhappy at the turn of events. Having spoken out forcefully during the Synod of Oceania for "a more inclusive, less clerical" Church, he related, they then found themselves outflanked by a document that called for a return to "textbook Catholicism." "Privately," said McGillion, "many of the bishops were angry with the way the visit had ended" feeling that the Statement "undercut the good that had come out of the Synod for Oceania." Once back in their dioceses, some of these bishops seem to have gone into a "damage-control" mode.

Archbishop Leonard Faulkner of Adelaide, one of Australia’s most liberal dioceses, was a participant in the discussions that led to the Statement. Unlike the many bishops who skirted the issue, he made it clear that general absolutions would continue in his diocese until he had cleared up the meaning of the term "grave necessity," which had been invoked by the Statement as the only reason for general absolutions. Archbishop Faulkner told a supportive public meeting on February 27 that "I have made a judgment [that] until such time as we have a definite policy, what has been in place will remain." He did add that he had instructed his priests to increase opportunities for individual confessions.

Earlier, in an address to the religious of Adelaide, the archbishop had reassured them that they need not feel threatened by the Statement of Conclusions: "There was strong affirmation at the [Rome] meeting for the work done by the religious and their role was not negated in any way." This was despite the Statement’s stern comments regarding the fragmentation of community life and the public dissent by leading religious. Adelaide has been a hotbed of radical feminism.

Mixed signals

Bishop Brian Heenan of Rockhampton, another participant in the discussions leading to the Statement, published his "Reflections" on his visit to Rome in the diocesan monthly Review. He seemed anxious to limit the future impact of the Statement, arguing: "The local Church lives out the Gospel within the context of its own culture." He told his readers that the Australian bishops had informed Roman officials "of the small right-wing group in Australia who present a false picture of the real life of the Church, who are narrow-minded and melancholy and cause division."

In the Brisbane archdiocese, Catholics were receiving mixed signals. Arch bishop John Bathersby confided to a gathering of over 200 priests on February 3 that it had taken him almost a week "to get over the hurt" of Pope John Paul II’s "stern instruction to the Australian bishops at the end of their adlimina visit on 14 December." He said that "after much prayer and consideration he came to realize that accepting the challenge from those in authority was a necessary part of belonging to a universal Church." How ever, the archbishop added that he was "angry" at the manner in which some Catholics had gathered information, "of ten in quite inappropriate ways," to convey to Rome. Father Bill O’Shea, who spoke on behalf of the priests of the archdiocese, responded that he too was "disappointed" by Rome’s pessimistic appraisal of the Church in Australia.

And Brisbane’s archdiocesan weekly, the Catholic Leader, published a number of articles critical of the Statement of Conclusions. Whether with the archbishop’s direct approval or not, these seemed designed to lower the credibility of the Statement and to blunt the impact of its directive. In his regular column, Father Kevin Ryan said: "We must feel for the majority of our bishops who are as hurt and disappointed as the rest of us." He lamented "the squashing of the community rite" (a reference to general absolution) and the fact that Rome had listened more to the letter-writing Catholics "than our own leaders." Another article by Garry Everett, who was described as being involved with "Church renewal in the Brisbane archdiocese," set about picking holes in the Statement. "As a lay person, I have some difficulties with the analysis," Everett wrote. He called it "unfortunate" that the document had made "negative" references to feminist theology, given the "new insights" provided by feminist scholars. He claimed "the pastoral solutions seemed not well aligned with the pastoral realities," and the document’s approach was "not inclusive in its approach."

But the Holy See needed only to examine official statistics for such dioceses as Rockhampton, noting the low weekly Mass attendance and the paucity of religious vocations, to grasp that not all was well there. Rome might well have been curious at Rockhampton’s policy of retiring priests at the age of 70 (instead of the canonical retirement age of 75) and then holding discussions about "priestless parishes."

Already in action

On the other hand, among Australia’s most orthodox papal "loyalists," the reaction to the Statement of Conclusions was far more upbeat. Bishop Kevin Manning of the Parramatta diocese in Sydney oversaw a special edition of his diocesan newspaper, Catholic Outlook, devoted to the Synod of Oceania and the subsequent document; the text of which was reproduced in full. In his letter to the diocese, Bishop Manning said: "The Holy Father left no doubt that he was calling each bishop ‘to assume full responsibility, setting his face resolutely against all that might harm the faith that had been handed down.’" The bishop fully endorsed the Pope’s calls to ad dress the reality of sin, as well as an undue stress on "the horizontal" at the expense of the supernatural. "The Holy Father has some concerns about the Australian Church and we have some work to do together," he concluded.

In an interview printed in the Record, Perth’s archdiocesan weekly (which also reprinted the text of the Statement in full), Archbishop Barry said he was well aware of the "crisis of faith" identified in the document. "My eyes have been wide open and I do what I can to reinvigorate the faith and call people back to the practice of the faith," the archbishop said. Later he added: "I think that the basic call was a call to bishops to take their responsibilities seriously. . . . We are all in the one Church and we can’t just pick and choose."

Responses to persecution

An anti-Christian campaign provokes international concerns

The United Nations’ High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR) has expressed concern over the spate of atrocities on Indian Christians in recent months.

"I am aware of the widespread concern over a pattern behind the attacks against the minorities," said Mary Robinson, chief of UNHCHR, in New Delhi on February 16. "I hope this pattern can be arrested by action against those responsible for the attacks on minorities."

Addressing a news conference at the conclusion of her three-day visit to India, during which she attended a UNHCHR- workshop on human rights, Robinson expressed "satisfaction" over the eagerness with which Indian government leaders had responded to the anti-Christian violence. Over 120 attacks on Christian targets, orchestrated by Hindu fundamentalists, were reported in 1998 alone.

Nevertheless, the former Irish president who now serves as the UN’s top human-rights official pointed out that the issue of religious tolerance had to be addressed "immediately" to underline the importance of religious freedom in a pluralistic country. The issue of atrocities on Christians had figured prominently in her talks with top officials of the Indian government, Robinson told reporters.

Still, the leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been unable to curb the anti-Christian rhetoric employed by many members of that party. Just two days before Robinson’s press conference, one leading BJP member sharply criticized Christians, revived the charge that Christian missionaries are forcibly baptizing Hindus, and promised to "re-convert" these Hindus back to their original faith.

At a ceremony in which 73 people were welcomed back into the Hindu faith, BJP member Dilipsingh Judeo announced: "This year I plan to convert 100,000 Christians into Hindus." Judeo is a leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parish ad, or World Hindu Council—a group with strong links to the BJP party, which has been frequently criticized for inciting violence against Christians. Taken in context, Judeo’s statement sounded like a clear call for further religious confrontation.

Threats and responses

As a result of the religious tensions that afflict the country, local officials in Kerala—the Indian state with the heaviest Catholic representation—set up security procedures to counter the threat of disruption at a February convention held by the Mar Thoma Evangelical Association. Responding to rumors that Hindu youth groups might try to interfere with the meeting, the state’s ruling Communist Party recruited a "secular army" of 1,000 to act as volunteer guards around the convention center.

India’s Christians found their way to respond to the intimidation campaign: with prayers. Several Indian cities saw inter-faith prayer meetings in the streets on Sunday, February 21, as Christians joined members of other religious minorities in a "Day of Prayer for Peace, Harmony, and Unity" throughout the country.

In New Delhi, over 3,000 Christians, led by a dozen Catholic bishops and Protestant leaders, attended the ecumenical prayer meeting in Parliament Street. Hindu, Muslim, Parsi, and Sikh believers chanted hymns and read from their scriptures. "We believe in forgiveness, prayer, love, and service. Despite all kinds of provocations, we will stick to the ancient tradition of India: spirituality," said Archbishop Alan Basil de Lastic of Delhi, the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, when he addressed the gathering.

Urging the Christian community to be "patient, cool, and forgiving" in its response to the violence, Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil, the vice president of the bishops’ conference, also declared that "while we hate the evil, we will al ways love the evildoer." Archbishop Vithayathil, the apostolic administrator of the autonomous Syro-Malabar Church, added that the recent attacks should not in any way deter Christians from their mission "to work for the downtrodden and the poor."