CathNews New Zealand

I think it is good that Bishop Michael Gielen is recognising and responding to the need for parishioners to be more involved in the way forward for their parishes.

All credit to Bishop Michael.

However, in fairness to the petitioners, there is a need for some clarification over the Recourses filed in Rome.

Some misinformation needs correcting.

Misinformation leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

It is best that is clarified before, the diocese, walking together with the Holy Spirit and Mary our Mother, sets out on its task of finding the most effective form of mission.

No group recourse

There were no Recourses filed by a “Group”.

Only an individual person affected by a decree can appeal against it.

Five individuals did. Some of the petitioners were members of a larger group (the Gathering Group comprising around 300) opposing the Plan, others were not.

One Recourse (affecting Christchurch South) is currently before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and it is not possible to address the substance of that matter while it was before the Signatura.

Rome replies in Latin

All five Recourses were filed, with the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples (CEP) in July 2020, not “earlier this year” as has been reported.

When no acknowledgment of the Recourses was forthcoming from CEP, a request was made in April 2021 for the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (responsible for the correct administration of justice within the Vatican) to ensure the Recourse was dealt with in a just manner.

The Signatura, itself, decided to hear the one Recourse.

The other petitioners (apart from one who has never been contacted at all) received a decision letter written in Latin, with no translation.

They do not know what it means.

Possibly, it is related to a technical issue.

However, a letter in English accompanying the Latin decision, in effect, advised that each other Recourse would not be accepted but the decline decision could be appealed.

Same same – but different

However, the accompanying letter went on to caution petitioners that they should bear in mind that one other Recourse was to be considered (South) and that was substantively the same as theirs.

Petitioners accepted there was no sense in having five separate appeals, with five sets of lawyers all with the same substantive argument.

Additionally, the cost of proceeding (both filing costs in the Signatura and costs of specially approved lawyers) was prohibitive for some and unnecessary given the same arguments in each Recourse.

The cost of filing in the Signatura was 1550 Euro for each Recourse, and in addition, each petitioner would be required to engage and pay Italian-based canon lawyers approved by the Signatura.

So, technically, any decision of the Signatura will only affect Christchurch South parish, however, the substance of each Recourse filed was the same.

It follows that if there was an error or irregularity with the South Decree, then the same error would have occurred in all the other Parish Cluster areas of the diocese.

Those wishing to follow the letter of the law could ignore the other Recourses, while those wishing to respect and follow the spirit of the law and learn from it, would probably await the South decision.

Synodality

It should be noted that all Recourses called for a synodal approach to the Plan, and this was before Pope Francis first called for the Synod on Synodality (SOS), so it would make good sense and be in keeping with the current impetus of the SOS to await the reports from its recent first phase.

Canon 1733 of the Code of Canon Law expresses the desirability of “using the mediation and effort of wise persons to avoid or settle …. controversy in a suitable way”.

Before the Recourses were filed, a synodal approach was asked for by the members of the Gathering Group (including some Petitioners).

It was conveyed to Bishop Paul Martin that there was a desire to deal with the matter as a “family” rather than as a legal process.

Sadly, that didn’t happen.

It is pleasing Bishop Gielen is talking now of the type of approach petitioners and the Gathering Group had previously hoped for over three years ago.

However, saying communities are now “free to consult as a parish as to what is the best way forward for (your) community” while prefacing that with “current parish boundaries will remain in place” is a bit like giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Prior parish communities don’t exist

The problem is parish communities prior to the change of boundaries, no longer juridically exist.

The people are there, but their legal status has gone.

At the heart of objections was the inability of the individual parish communities to have any say in the amalgamation of parishes.

That amalgamation decreed new ownership of the patrimony (assets gifted or purchased) of each former individual parish. Canon law is very strict (rightly so) on respecting and preserving the patrimony of individual parishes.

“Transition Teams”, so-called, need to be very careful in dealing with pre-merger parish assets.

Delay attributed to Rome not petitioners

The unacceptable delay over the Recourses is attributable to the system and not the petitioners.

They had to meet a strict time limit of 30 days within which to file the Resources, but their compliance with their obligations under canon law was met with no response at all until November 2021.

Even that response was very vague.

It is now over three years since filing with no immediate end in sight.

In the meantime, it is frustrating for all.

Selling land and churches

Every diocese has financial problems with declining numbers and attendance.

The financial problem is easily solved by closing and selling churches.

But the problem of declining numbers and attendance, together with the shortage of priests, is an ecclesial problem, and that won’t be solved by amalgamating parishes and building a Mega Church while selling local churches.

It is worth noting that during the Rogernomics era, politicians decided it a good idea to sell our public assets to get rid of the problem of our overseas debt.

The result; when three-quarters of our assets were sold, our overseas debt had doubled.

So, I suggest, without addressing our ecclesial problems, it would be a disaster to break up small communities and sell off churches, only to find our ecclesial problems have worsened.

The greatest resource any parish can have to create a more sustainable mission-focussed parish is People.

Parish dedication to community flourishes best locally.

The Common Good is a worthy principle of Catholic Social Teaching but is mostly applied to the distribution of material goods.

Pope Francis is clear: mission isn’t about sitting in buildings but reaching out, locally and in the homes of parishioners.

In Chapter One of Evengelii Gaudium he calls us to a New Evangelisation.

Another sound principle of Catholic Social Teaching is that of participation.

It follows that those most affected by a decision (including pre-merger parishes) should be involved in all the decision-making process.

Within a Christian faith community, great fruits will come from that.

 

Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament

The Cathedral rebuild (and where) decision is not without its difficulties.

While no Recourse was filed over the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament demolition (possibly because no Decree was effectively advertised) other objections independent of the Recourse petitioners and me as their lawyer, as to Bishop Martin’s proposed changes to relevant original Trust Objects, affecting the use of the land, were filed with the diocese.

Bishop Martin’s proposal was to change the original Trust Deed Objects (arising from a gift of the Barbadoes Street land) that related to the building of a church or other church-related building, to other appropriate purposes to be determined “at the sole discretion” of the bishop.

That proposed change needed to be notified to the Attorney General under the Roman Catholic Bishops Empowering Act 1979.

Apart from canon law, Bishop Gielen will need to satisfy himself that any undertakings given, or representations made, by Bishop Martin and appropriate earthquake legislation provisions to enable demolition of the Cathedral and the relevant provisions of the Roman Catholic Bishops Empowering Act 1997 have been appropriately dealt with.

A personal observation

If only we were sufficiently advanced in our ecumenism to be able to work with our Anglican sisters and brothers and share one Cathedral in the heart of the city, bringing to fruition the Priestly Prayer of Jesus, “that they all may be one” John 17.21.

That saving of millions of dollars would solve a few financial problems at least.

It could also serve to send a powerful “mission” statement to all the people of Christchurch City, Christian and non-Christian, and free up millions for other mission.

Bishop Michael wants it known that he has spent time listening.

To listen is to begin the process.

Participation and dialogue, following the listening, leads to an ultimate decision.

Much prayer, mutual trust and respect are key to a sound final decision.

• Kevin Campbell was asked to assist petitioners in filing Recourses to Rome following the Decrees of then Christchurch Catholic Bishop, Paul Martin.

He is a retired lawyer who sat in the Disputes Tribunal (a division of the District Court) for over 10 years.

A diocesan bishop has available to him a diocesan canon lawyer. However, once the bishop engages the canon lawyer, the canon lawyer is conflicted, such that he is unable to also advise the people.

The petitioners needed assistance to deal with the complexities of the appeal process.

Kevin Campbell was a fourth-generation member of the Christchurch diocese for over 50 years. He now lives in Palmerston North.

Additional reading

News category: Analysis and Comment.