Benjamin Disraeli in 1845 launched his book Sybil, The Two Nations. It spoke of the chasm between the gentry and the working class in England. As Disraeli saw it, there were two nations in one England. In Australia today can we speak of two classes in one Church? The gap is not between the haves and the have-nots, as in Disraeli’s England, but the grass-root Eucharistic communities, the parishes, vis-à-vis the professional bureaucratic aspect of the Church.

Government assistance to the educational and social welfare wings of the church is a mixed blessing. These financial grants naturally demand administrative bodies that will inevitably gravitate towards having a life of their own. Their continuing existence rather than their role of service in evangelisation can sometimes become the primary focus of their members.

Of course many of those who are leaders in social welfare and education are also leaders in their parishes. However the contrast between the grass roots Church, the parishes, and the burgeoning bureaucracies is at times painful. Our social welfare institutions and Catholic schools are flourishing, whilst parishes are shrinking in number and size.

The Perth Record of 13 May this year gives a very frank account of the situation in that diocese. A leading article “The reality of the pews” highlights the gap between those who identify themselves as Catholics in the national census and those who actually “darken the doors of a church more than twice a year!” The state of the play is undoubtedly the same in every Australian city.

Catholic schools were founded as a means of catechising and evangelising the young. Many of the families who choose Catholic schools for their children today are not necessarily inspired by a commitment to Catholic principles.

Catholic school principals will speak at times of the difficulty of engaging sufficiently qualified teachers to be responsible for the faith formation of their students. Whilst there is an ever-increasing number of well-informed Religious Education Coordinators their task is made difficult by the ethos of the homes of the children. Some teachers are assigned R.E. classes by default. Religious education is often seen as the poor relation on the curriculum.

In a world where technical knowledge of a cherished discipline is taken for granted that is not necessarily the case where the truths and traditions of our faith are concerned. The late John O’Brien (Mgr Hartigan) recorded in verse the case of the lad in the confirmation class:

And so, how pleased his lordship was, and how he smiled to say,

“That’s good, my boy. Come, tell me now; and what is Christmas Day?”

The ready answer bared a fact no bishop ever knew -

“It’s the day before the races out at Tangmalangaloo.”

That humorous absurdity has many modern counterparts among the young (and old) in a secular world that greatly overshadows the City of God. A nettle yet to be grasped by Catholic Education is the assignment only of committed Catholic teachers to R.E. classes. In no other highly valued discipline are the vague and confused offered as mentors.

Since Vatican II the inspiring truth for the Church’s renewal is “The eucharist – the source and summit of our faith life”. A natural corollary of this aphorism is concern about the dwindling number of priests. Pope Benedict XVI has issued a clarion call in this regard in instituting the Year of the Priest which began on 19 June 2009.

For the people in our pews the purpose of the Year of the Priest will be easily understood. Many of the administrative decisions in a diocese are made at a bureaucratic level. Will the importance of this year be central to their planning?

In our schools, will the Pope’s vision be translated into a practical reality as part of the faith presentation?

There is no doubt that the ordinary everyday practising Catholics who face the future with a sense of foreboding will welcome and embrace the Year of the Priest. Often their voices are thin and wan in the diocesan choir. In secular terms they are the real stake-holders in the Church’s future.

Perhaps an adaptation of G.K. Chesterton’s lament of the people of England is appropriate. The original verse mirrors Disraeli’s theme of the two nations:

Smile at us, pass us by
but do not quite forget
we are the people in the pews
and we have not spoken yet.

Back to St Mary’s

The saga of the South Brisbane Parish whose priest and many of the people have left the parish church and found a home in a nearby trade union hall has gone quiet, at least in the popular press.

Such separations are always painful and regrettable.

The Liturgy News (Brisbane March 2009) sums up the situation well:

“Let it be said that Catholic liturgy is not the straight jacket some people assume it to be…The Catholic liturgical books regularly invite the priest to adapt the celebration to the nature of the assembly. Down through the centuries and around the world, the Catholic liturgy has shown itself quite capable of embracing such variety, but the presumption is always that such variation takes place within the communion of the Body of Christ. This is the deeper issue at stake. What does the liturgy say about the relationship of the community at St Mary’s with the Catholic Church?…The starting point for a community which calls itself Catholic ought to be the Roman liturgy as presented in the Catholic liturgical books. Liturgy preparation does not begin with a tabula rasa…The common Roman liturgy is a powerful sign of being in communion with one another….What happens when a community chooses its own reading or even chooses to dispense with the Scriptures altogether? There is rupture.”

Many people will continue to pray and work for the healing of the rupture.

Guest Editors:

Robert Egar

Bob Wilkinson