This is the view of Dr Joe Grayland, theologian, author and parish priest of three parishes in Palmerston North, New Zealand.

He questions whether we need another form of the clergy. - Originally reported 31 May 2021

Grayland made the comments, Thursday, during Flashes of Insight - Women Deacons in the Catholic Church, a conversation with Dr Phyllis Zagano, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique, Justin Taylor and hosted by Emeritus Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Nottingham Thomas O'Loughlin.

Grayland asks if the Church actually needs permanent male or female deacons.

If it does, he suggests we need to change the understanding projected by the transitional diaconate modelled in seminaries.

Grayland says he works with eight women across the three parishes; they serve the community, they work full time, but none are ordained.

We might need more priests, but Grayland says the last thing we need is an expanded clerical class, the permanent diaconate.

It is not a perspective Zagano shares.

Zagano is an internationally recognised scholar, prolific writer and advocate for women deacons.

She says that if anyone wants to be a deacon to get power, they have other issues.

The ministry of the deacon is one of service, she says.

Zagano says it is important to have a specialised view of ministry and that the diaconate should not be limited to in-house Church functions.

Zagano says the office of the deacon is distinct from the function of deacons.

Deacons hold the same office, but their ministry of service would be expressed differently, she said.

She says that if people want to go to confession, they see a priest, and if they go for food, counselling or spiritual direction, deacons can offer the service.

If our prime concern is not to expand the clerical class, why ordain anyone, she asks.

She however noted that if the Church were to reintroduce deacons, there is a question around whether they would be installed or ordained.

Zagano says there is no doubt that women were deacons in the Early Church.

It is a point that Taylor, who works on some of the earliest evidence the Church has, agrees with.

Taylor says that it is clear from both scripture and the documents from the first thousand years that women were deacons.

When the Early Church spoke of deacons, there was no distinction made between male or female.

Taylor says that referencing deacons, men or women, the Early Church saw deacons as officeholders and not just functionaries.

Questioned by O'Loughlin about the future, Grayland says that women's ministry should not be seen as a threat to male in ministry.

He commented when looking at the evidence if the Church is going to have women deacons, the church needs to popularise it as part of the Church evolving.

He says that reflecting on what Zagano and Taylor have discussed; the Church needs to understand that the development of women's diaconate is not a straight-line trajectory but an evolution.

Grayland says he hopes our Church's understanding of women's ministry and women's diaconate will change but wonders why we do not have women deacons now.

Zagano agrees and says we must not go forth in political discussion but with a spirit of discernment.

She says that a wise bishop once wrote to her and says this about discernment.

"Discernment is not an organizational technique, and it's not a passing fashion, but it's an interior attitude rooted in an act of faith."

"Discernment is the method and at the same time the goal."

"It's based on the belief that God is at work in the history of the world in the events of life and the people we meet and who speak to us."

"This is why we are called to listen to what the Spirit suggests to us with often unpredictable ways and directions."

"As one might assume, he's a Jesuit bishop," she says.

Zagano concludes by saying it is important that theologians listen to the People of God and for the People of God to make their needs known.

In a spirit of discernment, Zagano is convinced that if the People of God make their needs known, they will not be denied.

As to the future, Zagano says that we need a genuine discerning discussion, a prayerful discussion, to move to a future where the Church will restore the tradition of women in ministry and the diaconate.

Of course, they feel threatened. Would a starving man feel threatened working with a chef?

I believe that the option of marriage for parish priests must come before the ordination of women in the Catholic Church.

I'll explain through question and answer, but first, an introduction to my own background.

My father was Scottish Presbyterian, my mother was Brethren. Jesus has always been a part of my life. I grew up in many churches, and found something in all of them, but ran out of space.

Catholic influence came through books and then through other people.

Eventually, I received instruction and entered the Catholic Church.

I had come home.

Five years later, my priest friend Terry Coles wanted to marry me.

Terry knew there were Anglican priests in my family, and he suggested we both become Anglicans.

I told Terry I had to remain Catholic.

We had support from Catholic clergy and Women Religious, but generally, laypeople seemed convinced we were going to hell.

Now I'd like to clear up some of the misinformation that is still out there.

Were the apostles celibate?

No. They were Jews, and marriage was important.

In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul writes: "Have we no right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" (RSV)

In the Jerusalem Bible, "woman" is described as a "Christian wife."

Cephas was Peter, who was in Rome when Paul's letter was written. I doubt that you will find any reference to Mrs Peter in the Vatican.

Why were the apostles' wives not mentioned in the Gospels?

For the same reason that electricity is not mentioned in modern books.

Marriage was taken for granted.

We must also remember that Jesus did not leave writings, and neither did the apostles. It was the followers of the apostles who recorded the stories handed down to them.

Was Jesus married?

Probably not. But he loved and respected women.

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus rebuke a woman for lack of faith.

We are told he had special friends in Martha and Mary and Mary of Magdala. When he was resurrected, he chose to appear first to Mary of Magdala.

Why would he say to her, "Do not touch me" if he wasn't accustomed to having her embrace him?

Women were not a part of Jesus' ministry

Really?

Let us read between the lines. Jesus' ministry began with his mother at the wedding in Cana. He thought he wasn't ready, but she knew he was ready.

Remember when Jesus believed that his ministry was to be to the lost children of Israel?

When he sent his disciples out, he told them not to go to Samaria or the Pagan Territories.

In Samaria, Jesus preached to Samaritans after his conversation with the woman at the well.

In the Pagan territories, he also preached to people after a woman challenged him to heal her daughter. We could say that both these women were instrumental in making his mission global.

In the Catholic tradition, priests have always been celibate

No. That is not true. Priests, bishops, and popes were married.

However, there came a time when Church property was being handed down to children. So the priesthood became celibate.

I suspect there is some truth in the saying, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

But priests need to be celibate to freely serve. They can't do this if they are looking after a family

My experience of other churches, especially the Anglican, tells me that the married priest has a spouse and family to help him or her in ministry. In Orthodox churches, celibacy is for the Religious. Parish priests must be married before they go into a parish.

Mistakes can happen, so one divorce is allowed, but not more than one. This seems to work.

But it costs money to raise a family. How would the Catholic Church cope with that?

How is the Catholic Church coping with payment for abuse cases?

If we walk away from nature, it will pursue us.

I know good men abused by priests when they were young, but they have not made this public because they love their Church. But what about those who have made claims? What has that cost the Church?

Do I think women will become priests?

Yes, I do.

Even in Biblical times, women were priests.

Miriam, sister of Moses, was made High Priest with Aaron.

St Paul mentions Phoebe, a woman who looked after several churches in Chencre. What do we call someone who looks after several churches? A bishop?

There will be women priests, but I think that marriage for parish priests must come first. My hope for this is with our compassionate and wise Pope Francis.

It is said that if a priest marries, the marriage will fail

That is political nonsense.

My husband Terry left his body six months ago. He was 92, and in 32 years of lovely marriage, I believe we have done more for our Church than we could have done separately.

Have I wanted to be a priest?

No.

My call is to the laity, and my heart lies with the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

I love the Catholic Church.

I love the beauty of our Faith, the messiness of our history, and that great mixture of the human and the Divine.

I am a year older than our Pope, and I will remain Catholic to the end of my last breath. But in the time left, I pray that I will see married priests.

• Joy Cowley is a wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and retreat facilitator.

Others hold him in high esteem.

Neither of these groups will have their minds changed about Cardinal Pell, ­regardless of what any court might determine.

The majority of Australians fall into neither camp.

Victorian Police

In the midst of controversy and with allegations of gross criminal activity, these Australians expect the police, the prosecution authorities and the courts to do their work diligently, imposing punishment on proven criminals and protecting the rights and liberties of all other citizens.

The Pell saga has now run for more than four years, ever since the Victoria Police commenced an operation on Christmas Eve 2015 seeking evidence of any wrongdoing by Pell around his cathedral during the years 1996-2001, when he was archbishop of Melbourne.

One complainant

This extraordinary trawling exercise turned up only one complainant, whose allegations were taken all the way to trial.

The complainant gave evidence that he and his now-deceased companion were serially assaulted sexually by Pell in the priests' sacristy immediately after solemn Sunday mass in St Patrick's Cathedral in late 1996.

He also gave evidence that Pell assaulted him in the sacristy corridor after another mass a couple of months later.

That's the case the High Court has just thrown out.

Thus the anger and relief at Tuesday's decision.

Court unanimous and with one voice

The High Court has spoken definitively, unanimously and with one voice.

All seven Justices have agreed that in relation to all five charges, "there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted".

The court ­ordered that Pell's "convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place".

Pell has rightly walked free in time for Easter.

The complainant is left to get on with his life as best he can, wondering what was the point of this protracted legal trauma.

The court accepted that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence "as thoroughly credible and reliable".

In the Victorian Court of Appeal, that step was enough for two of the judges to uphold the convictions.

But the dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg, Australia's most experienced criminal appeal court judge, thought that was just the first step of a court's inquiry, and not the last.

All seven High Court judges agree.

Reasonable doubt

The court needed to examine the record of all the evidence in the case "to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment, the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt".

The court unanimously decided that any jury acting rationally must have had a reasonable doubt.

In addition to the complainant, there were many other witnesses called by the prosecution in Pell's case.

They included 23 witnesses "who were involved in the conduct of solemn mass at the cathedral or who were members of the choir in 1996 and/or 1997".

Many of these witnesses were also thoroughly credible and reliable, though their reliability faltered at times given that they were trying to recall what they would have been doing after mass in St Patrick's Cathedral on a particular Sunday 22 years before.

The honesty of these witnesses was not questioned by the prosecution.

The High Court found that many of these witnesses had given consistent evidence that placed Pell on the steps of the cathedral for at least 10 minutes after mass on December 15 and 22, 1996, the only possible dates when the first four offences could have been committed.

The prosecution "conceded that the offences alleged in the first incident could not have been committed if, following mass, (Pell) had stood on the cathedral steps greeting congregants for 10 minutes".

The court also found that there was unquestioned evidence by honest witnesses that placed Pell in company with his Master of Ceremonies when he returned to the priests' sacristy to disrobe.

Furthermore, there was abundant evidence of "continuous traffic into and out of the priests' sacristy for 10 to 15 minutes" after the altar servers returned to the sacristy at the end of the procession at the conclusion of mass.

There was no five-to-six-minute hiatus for the offences to occur with Pell, the complainant and his companion in the sacristy alone, together and uninterrupted, straight after mass.

A tragedy

The tragedy of this case for everyone, including victims and complainants (and most especially this complainant), is that an ordinary police investigation would have highlighted these problems with the complainant's account.

When interviewed in Rome back in October 2016 by Victorian police officers who were being supervised by their Deputy Commissioner, Shane Patton, Pell told the police that the sacristy was "a hive of activity" after mass with altar servers, sacristan, assistant sacristan, money collectors and any concelebrating priests coming and going.

He said he would have been accompanied at all relevant times by his MC Charles Portelli.

The police returned to Australia and interviewed Portelli and the sacristan, Max Potter, who basically confirmed all Pell had said about the "hive of activity".

But police did not bother to interview one single altar server.

They made no inquiries about money collectors or concelebrating priests.

They just went ahead and charged Pell, and with great media fanfare.

They went ahead building a case on the idea the priests' sacristy might have been left ­vacant and open on this one particular day, contrary to all church routine and ritual.

The High Court rightly observed that "adherence to ritual and compliance with ­established liturgical practice is a defining feature of religious observance".

The farce of the case was the ­belated attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions to create the space for the necessary hiatus.

At trial, the prosecutor suggested, contrary to the evidence, the altar servers might have adjourned to another room, for no reason, for five to six minutes before being called back to the priests' sacristy to resume their duties.

He had to withdraw that suggestion before the jury.

In the High Court, the DPP submitted once again that the servers might have adjourned to another room or to the sanctuary to assist the sacristan.

The High Court dealt with this suggestion kindly but firmly: "The submission comes close to repeating the submission which the prosecutor withdrew at the trial.

"There was no evidence that the altar servers went to their room to disrobe prior to returning to the sanctuary in order to assist in clearing away the sacred vessels and other objects."

In the end, there was just not the evidence to support the complainant's account.

There never was.

For the good of all victims and complainants, Victoria's DPP and police must review procedures for cases like this.

Those who neither canonise nor despise George Pell should be grateful the High Court has delivered justice according to law in this protracted saga.

• Frank Brennan is a Jesuit priest and lawyer who attended some of the Pell court proceedings. This article was first published in The Australian newspaper.

Not all of them have been approved for publication. - Originally reported 29 May 2015.

Feed-back we have received would lead us to believe we are not alone in our discomfort.

In the year 197 Tertullian imagined pagans looking at Christians and saying "Look how they love one another (for they themselves [pagans] hate one another); and how they are ready to die for each other (for they themselves [pagans] are ready to kill each other.")

We wonder if a searcher for the truth coming across the comments in CathNews New Zealand and Pacific would say the same thing.

At CathNews New Zealand and Pacific we work hard to provide a broad range of news items, comments, features and opinions.

We select items from all parts of the faith spectrum, in the hope that knowledge might lead to understanding and understanding to bridge building.

It is not a matter of agreeing, but of seeking to get inside the skin of another person so as to understand why they think and act in the way they do.

Without this understanding, a genuine exchange of ideas is impossible.

No one changes their mind by being shouted at, let alone being labeled as evil.

Polarisation is a bad thing. Conflict need not be, and in fact in human affairs it is often vital for growth in truth.

The opening of the Good News to us, the Gentiles, depended in no small measure on the conflict between Paul and Peter in the early Church.

Pope Benedict XVI repeatedly stressed the compatibility of faith and reason, and there is a lovely phrase in the Declaration of Religious Freedom in Vatican II that says, "Truth cannot be imposed except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entry into the mind at once quietly and with power."

So in the words of Barack Obama can we:

• Find a way back to civility empowered by faith
• Step out of our comfort zones in an effort to bridge divisions
• At least be civil, by relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable

A rule of thumb could be, "If you can't speak the truth with love, then it is better to remain silent."

In 1997 Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who was the Archbishop of Chicago, wrote:

"American Catholics must reconstitute the conditions for addressing our differences constructively—a common ground centred on faith in Jesus, marked by accountability to the living Catholic tradition, and ruled by a renewed spirit of civility, dialogue, generosity, and broad and serious consultation."

Here is a summary of seven principles for dialogue suggested by Bernardin:

1. We should recognise that no single group or viewpoint in the church has a complete monopoly on the truth.
2. We should not think of ourselves or any one part of the church a saving remnant.
3. We should test all proposals for their pastoral realism and potential impact on living individuals as well as for their theological truth.
4. We should presume that those with whom we differ are acting in good faith. They deserve civility, charity, and a good-faith effort to understand their concerns.
5. We should put the best possible construction on differing positions, addressing their strongest points rather than seizing upon the most vulnerable aspects in order to discredit them.
6. We should be cautious in ascribing motives. We should not impugn another's love of the church and loyalty to it.
7. We should bring the church to engage in the issues of the day, not by simple defiance or by naive acquiescence, but acknowledging, in the fashion of Gaudium et Spes, both our culture's valid achievements and real dangers.

Called to be Catholic in a time of peril

There is always a fair degree of editorial judgment in allowing and not allowing comments. In general the editors' choice is governed by several factors:

At CathNews New Zealand and Pacific, in deciding whether or not to approve a comment we ask ourselves:

• is the comment spam?
• is the comment offensive?
• is the comment libellous?
• is the comment ad-hominem?
• is the comment a put down?
• is the comment a "cheap shot"?
• is the comment on topic?
• is the commenter repeating themselves?
• has the point been been already made by someone else?
• is the comment adding to the discussion?

We hope comments on CathNews New Zealand and Pacific will be expressed in a manner befitting the followers of Jesus Christ who said, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:37

DenisO'Hagan

Denis O'Hagan is the editor of CathNews New Zealand and Pacific

Image: ovenantaldivide.com

The Church Resources Ltd board, the current publisher of CathNews, recently made this decision.

The move follows the closure of NZ Catholic in June and the promise of a new publication.

Forward looking - a new chapter

This change marks a new chapter for CathNews, which has played a unique role in delivering news, analysis, and commentary of interest to the Catholic Church community.

The decision also aligns with broader changes within the Catholic media landscape in New Zealand.

The NZCBC's request to take over CathNews was the fourth received by the publication.

The announcement comes as CathNews reports impressive readership statistics: 4,490,401 articles were read between December 1, 2023, and November 30, 2024.

However, while transferring the asset, NZCBC Executive Officer Damian Dempsey confirmed that the Bishops Conference did not require the current CathNews writers. This left Church Resources Chair Fr Kevin Conroy SM with the difficult task of informing the lay staff that they would lose their jobs just before Christmas.

Thanks to writers, contributors and readers

For quite some time, CathNews has been shaped by the dedication of its writers, Juliet, Ronan, and behind the scenes, Gerard, who for some time were instrumental in producing CathNews twice weekly.

These people brought diverse life experiences and talents to the publication, often supporting each other to ensure continuity.

The team worked from various points within New Zealand, Australia, multiple parts of Asia, several European countries, and the US. CathNews never missed a publication, even during COVID.

Earlier, Pat McCarthy and Michael Otto also played significant roles as writers.

It is essential to say that just because they wrote about a topic from a particular perspective does not mean they wrote personally. They were doing their job.

Fr Denis O'Hagan SM also played a critical role in CathNews, helping establish its credibility and serving as its first editor. Denis had a particular interest in the gospel in broader society, and his passing earlier this year was a significant loss to the publication and its readers.

Several contributors, including Dr Joe Grayland, Professor Thomas O'Loughlin, Dr Phyllis Zagano, Joy Cowley, and occasionally Dr Christopher Longhurst, enriched CathNews with their experience and significant insightful commentary on the Church and society.

However, the unsung heroes of CathNews are its readers and those who have told their friends about it.

CathNews was compiled and managed on the 'charge of a regularly near empty rechargeable battery'. It was never advertised, so its growth was primarily by word of mouth.

Therefore, a thank you to the readers who enjoyed the publication sufficiently to promote it.

Others to thank are numerous people who offered comments and substantiated stories.

New Zealand is a small place where everyone knows our name, so most of these CathNews commentators wished to remain anonymous and changed their names and, occasionally, even their gender!

Regardless of name or gender, these real people with real perspectives gave gravitas to stories. Thank you.

There may still be a lesson in Denis O'Hagan's only opinion piece for CathNews, which we are re-publishing again today.

One distinct difference between publishing a newspaper and publishing online is the feedback statistics provide. CathNews heard you.

An occasional look at the list of countries where CathNews was read shows the reach of interest and the opportunity this medium presents, so a particular 'shout-out' to international readers recommending this New Zealand service to their friends, particularly in Australia and the United States.

Another highlight was the forward thinking of some priests who included seamlessly selected news in their parish newsletters.

Interestingly, on one occasion, the seamless syndication was promptly terminated when the priest shifted, and the communication role was transferred to a layperson.

CathNews enjoyed the support of a major sponsor. Without its significant backing and encouragement, CathNews would never have happened. On behalf of the readers, a sincere thank you. The sponsor always likes prayers.

CathNews was never Catholic News

While some referred to CathNews as "Catholic News," it never aimed to fit this mould. Instead, CathNews provided news and analysis of interest to the Catholic Church while addressing broader societal concerns, including AI, child poverty, housing, and modern technology.

A parish priest more than once suggested that CathNews only report on Catholic-specific issues and avoid controversial topics.

For those with similar views, we recommend reflecting on paragraph one of Gaudium et Spes.

CathNews was never limited to "news from inside a walled garden" but explored issues relevant to the Church in the modern world.

However, some critics felt CathNews was too liberal, not loyal, did not go far enough, or was not spiritual enough.

The publication carved a niche by maintaining editorial independence. Its mission was to inform and promote thoughtful reflection, and as such, it served as a possible seedbed for prayer.

To reference Pope Francis, there's room for 'everyone'.

Readers must opt-in to get the new CathNews

In January 2026, under NZCBC management, CathNews will undergo editorial changes.

While some readers may embrace the shift, others may not.

Following CathNews's privacy policy, existing readers must opt-in to receive the new version.

Opting out is not sufficient.

NZCBC CathNews

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

 

Flashes of Insight

As CathNews transitions, a small global initiative, Flashes of Insight, is in its planning stages.

It will target forward-thinking readers.

A weekly publication will offer concise reflections and in-depth commentary on critical issues. Details about how to subscribe will be announced soon.

Flashes of Insight will remain free.

Today's edition

Today's edition of CathNews is a little different. In effect it's virtual fish n chip paper, it's yesterday's news.

The stories on today's page are a range of popularly read stories that cover an range of topics that CathNews have covered over the past thirteen years.

"I stood there in the Church and didn't know what to do. I was listening to this lament in a very public place. I wanted to leave, but then I thought I would be seen to be a perpetrator or outed as a victim. So, I sat down and spent the rest of the Mass angry…," said one man, who wrote to me.

The man says he felt used, adding, "I am so sick of apologies; they are just another form of victimisation."

This is the first of a series of stories I received following my initial piece in CathNews.

A nurse also wrote, recalling that at the end of the Mass, she and the other reader sat with the reader asked to lead the lament—without any preparation—and processed what it all meant.

"A truly professional organisation would have offered support to anyone in the congregation impacted by abuse because you never know who is sitting there and what they are experiencing, but there was nothing."

Another person wrote: "The Sunday Mass is no longer a safe place when I am made guilty of the sins of paedophiles, and church leaders who have not led."

A younger person recounted the experience of being "personally blamed for the crimes that others did in my country" during her grandparent's generation.

"To me, the lament does the same, and I know that others also were upset; I just wonder how those who were abused felt?"

Communications blunder

"They did old-form communications, focusing mainly on content rather than modern messaging that also considers the impact," wrote a communications professional.

Nowadays, there is also more than one channel to deliver a suitable message.

Given that most Catholics no longer regularly attend Sunday Mass, using the Mass as a key communications channel is designed for the village; it is pre-digital and shows that if the bishops receive communication advice, the advisors must up their game.

The response I received to my original piece from clergy has been supportive.

Several wrote expressing their distaste for what they had to do and how they had to do it. Some expressed surprise that no network of support was offered.

Having received the material before Sunday Mass, one priest offered pastoral feedback to his bishop on the content and strategy, but the priest says his advice was not taken.

Other priests also wrote saying they modified the lament or ignored it all together.

Sunday Mass

Sunday Mass is a space where the divine and the human meet, a place beyond the pragmatic.

Understanding the nature of liturgical rites and how they function theologically is the work of liturgical theologians, not a dive into the esoteric.

Using a biblical lament during a Sunday Mass is never appropriate.

Biblical laments are placed within penitential services as part of the healing process.

Accordingly, penitential laments change in their structure, language and purpose according to who is lamenting and what is being lamented:

• I lament that I have done this,
• I lament that others have done this to me,
• We lament that we as a people and nation have done this.

Laments should not be used as a cheap ‘apologetic hocus-pocus'.

It also appears that the bishops' liturgical advisors and theologians must up their game.

Representative or actual guilt and accountability

In making these comments, distinguishing between representative guilt, actual guilt and accountability must be more carefully considered.

How do the current group of bishops, congregational leaders and school leaders/Boards carry the representative guilt and accountability for their predecessors' lapses in moral judgment when they do not carry the actual guilt or personal accountability?

Is it reasonable to project representative guilt or accountability onto the general population with little knowledge of what went on, who have had no part in decision-making and those without agency?

The reality of abuse will be the defining historical term of this period of the Church.

Institutional abuse must be addressed on many levels because it is primarily a human reality; and it is through addressing human needs, decision-making and the human experience of being abused that the institution can find a new way of operating.

An approach to moving forward

In order for everyone to move forward with their lives I'd like to suggest three conversations may be appropriate:

• ask survivors what an authentic act of penance or repentance would look like;
• ask survivors and parishioners what a genuine act of restitution for survivors might look like;
• ask survivors, parishioners, and perpetrators what a healing form of public reconciliation might look like.

In these conversations, a synodal approach to the reality of abuse might uncover and communicate more than an apology ever can.

Importantly, these conversations must not be forced on survivors, Sunday Mass-goers, or perpetrators; they should not be seen as conversations that solve the problem so everyone can move on.

Healing

The function of the Royal Commission was to listen, judge, and act by making recommendations. The Royal Commission helps by exposing issues but cannot heal because it is a legal instrument, not a theological one.

Similarly, political reform will only change the functions around abuse prevention, not abuse's ontology.

In contrast, the Christian Church possesses the tools to address abuse beyond legality and functional prevention, and the Church must offer more than a change in the management of abuse prevention.

The Church must forge new pathways to healing and reconciliation by applying the theological truths of faith, hope, and love through our sacramental system and the mercy of the Gospel.

The way forward for Christians is ultimately theological and liturgical because that is how we frame and understand salvation, life, death, meaning and purpose.

Similarly, a radical (from the roots) reform of the exercise of authority in the church needs to be addressed theologically if the experience and complexity of institutional abuse are to be transformative of institutional leadership.

• Dr Joe Grayland is an assistant lecturer in the Department of Liturgy at the University of Wuerzburg (Germany). He has also been a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Palmerston North (New Zealand) for more than 30 years.

Enshittification is perfectly crafted to match our times.

It is dismissive, slightly pretentious, sets a scatological word within a scientific frame and turns worthless behaviour into a technological process.

The naming of the freshly coined word of the year made me wonder about the fate of unused words.

Should we also have a yearly burial service for words that have recently died?

One such rarely used word is classy.

It differs from the New Word for 2024 in its construction. It is laudatory, domesticates a word in common use, and lets it stand for itself without prompting.

Its meaning, however, is also ultimately defined by the examples it is used to describe.

• Classy is when Sydney Carton sacrifices his life for his friend in A Tale of Two Cities.
• Classy is when, in ‘the mile race of the century', John Landy stops to help up Ron Clarke.
• Classy is when Weary Dunlop, having tirelessly helped and stood up for ill and injured prisoners of war, forgives his captors.

Classy, of course, is derived from class.

It connotes First Class, and also Upper Class.

It embraces the self-sacrificing, understated, behaviour expected of the Upper Class and attributed to them as typical in books and comics. On Scott's Expedition to the South Pole, for example, Lawrence ‘Titus' Oates steps out ‘for a while' from his tent in order to give his companions a better chance of living.

The association with Class has contributed to the decommissioning of classy.

As journalists focused on the pretensions and hypocrisy of the Upper Classes and on the gap between their representation in popular literature and their behaviour, class became a pejorative word and classy was also tainted.

Whether society is the better for the dethroning of classy and the coronation of enshittification, I leave for you to decide.

It is the nature of Stray Thoughts to conclude with a question: Are there other once popular and now little-used words whose passing you regret?

• Andrew Hamilton SJ is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.
• First published in Eureka Street. Published with the writer's permission.

These have included high-stakes cases involving the Yukos Oil Company in Russia, an energy business in Ukraine, and land claims under a treaty between Malaysia and Singapore.

In every case, the principle is clear: compensation must be fair and should aim to restore as much of what was lost as possible.

When it comes to New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi settlements, the government consistently falls far short of international standards—and its principles of fairness.

Before signing the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the British government made it clear that the Maori "title to the soil" and "sovereignty of New Zealand" was "indisputable".

Crucially, colonisation depended on the "consent" of Maori.

Yet, the treaty that followed has been undermined by decades of breaches — particularly relating to the loss of land.

It is well documented and accepted by the government that compensation for land claims covered by Waitangi settlements does not remotely reflect market values and fall short of the loss suffered by Maori landowners.

Given the current debate about Treaty principles, the shortfall in compensation should be more widely acknowledged.

It is also far short of what New Zealanders generally could expect if the government seized their land.

Waitangi land settlements are a specific and substantial form of discrimination against Maori.

The Treaty Principles policy that ACT leader David Seymour campaigned for, guaranteed equal rights and duties for all.

Post-election, I was interested in whether a change was underway.

That is, given ACT's "everyone has the same rights" promise, I assumed that land settlements would now be based on the same standards of compensation New Zealanders could generally expect.

However, Seymour now considers his election promise "too broad" and the equal treatment guarantee would not apply to Treaty settlements.

There is a real danger that the inadequacy of Treaty settlements is intended to continue.

Two landmark cases — the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu and Ngai Tahu claims—illustrate the scale of the injustice. The government has acknowledged the wrongful confiscation of 1.2 million acres (500,000 acres) of Waikato-Tainui land, valued at $12 billion in 1995. Yet the settlement amounted to just $170 million—a discount of over 98%.

The same settlement sum was offered for Ngai Tahu, whose claim involved breaches involving a tenth of the 34.5m acres sold to the government (about 80% of the South Island). The government has never put forward any reasoned case to link these sums to the losses suffered by Maori.

While helpful for iwi development, these settlements are far from fair compensation.

The government admits as much.

There are many examples.

For instance, the Ngati Hinerangi Deed of Settlement explicitly states that "full compensation… is not possible." Yet, there is no effort to explain why or to address the vast gulf between the losses and the restitution provided.

The inequality becomes even more glaring when compared to the rights of other New Zealanders generally.

If the government took your home under the Public Works Act, you'd be entitled to compensation at market value—a right that every New Zealander expects and deserves.

Token compensation, such as the Treaty settlements, falls far short of this standard.

New Zealand is not alone in addressing treaty disputes.

Continue reading

• Tim Giles is originally from Wellington. He is an internationally recognised financial economics consultant and valuation expert, specialising in treaty disputes and international arbitration. He is a senior advisor for Analysis Group.

We're headed to a small town a few hours away.

After endless traffic snarls, we turn onto a highway. The sister driving us turns up the volume of her Catholic pop tunes.

My mom, Joasia, had spent part of World War II hidden in a convent attached to an orphanage located in the town we are driving to.

At 69, Mom asked me to find the sisters who'd cared for her. I'd emailed over a dozen Catholic churches and I'd searched for months, but only met dead ends.

I was about to give up when a friend introduced me to the editor of a Polish Catholic magazine.

At his request, I asked Mom to describe the sister's clothing.

She said the nuns wore skirts and shirts, and sweaters when it was cold, and some covered their heads with scarfs -- no black or white head-to-toe habits.

The editor matched Mom's descriptions to the Imienia Jezus order.

When he reached out to them, Sister Honorata, their archivist, confirmed her order had hidden a small Jewish girl during the war.

When I met Sister Honorata at the order's headquarters yesterday, I felt hopeful.

Sister wore a polyester cream shirt, black calf-length skirt and black Birkenstock-style sandals with white socks, similar to my mother's description.

But I was still skeptical.

Whenever Mom shared her memories with me, I would research them.

Often, dates didn't line up.

Details differed.

Also, 10 years ago, she'd searched in Poland for the sisters and couldn't find them because she was looking in the wrong town.

Sister Honorata had been friends with the sister who'd cared for the little hidden girl, and who, until the day she died, worried about what happened to the child after the war.

"What was that sister's name?" My voice cracked.

"Sister Kornelia," Sister Honorata said, whispering as if someone was eavesdropping. "Joasia was always on her mind. They were more like mother and child."

Hearing her say Mom's name made my pulse gallop.

"But after the war, she was scared to talk about what happened. You could sense her fear," she told me.

This did not surprise me. Nazi Germany imposed a death penalty in Poland for anyone who aided Jewish people.

Hours later, in the car, Sister Honorata points out a small chapel painted daffodil yellow.

Greek pillars flank the front door. It's not the steepled brick building I had expected. Beside it is an enormous, single-story wooden building, large enough to be a factory. It was a school the sisters converted to an orphanage during the war — the one Mom had described to me.

I gasp. Mom has a sharp mind and excellent recall abilities. Continue reading

Pope Francis recently issued a letter "On the renewal of the study of the history of the Church." No matter: Francis himself seems to have forgotten the history of women ordained as deacons.

When he spoke with CBS News' Norah O'Donnell in an interview last spring, she asked if young girls would be able to become deacons someday.

He answered, "No. If it is deacons with holy orders, no. But women have always had, I would say the function of deaconesses without being deacons, right?"

Wrong.

A thousand-year tradition

For more than 1,000 years, women served as deacons (or deaconesses, depending on the language). The only person in Scripture called a deacon is St Phoebe, who traveled to Rome as an emissary of Saint Paul, carrying his Letter to the Romans.

As the church matured, women deacons were ordained during Masses, just as men deacons were.

The ordination liturgies bishops used over the centuries to ordain women to the diaconate meet the standards for sacramental ordination decreed by the 16th-century Council of Trent.

These women are named in literary documents and their names are inscribed on tombstones across the lands of early Christianity.

What happened?

The Church eventually stopped ordaining anyone to the diaconate as a permanent vocation, because the diaconate of men had become a stumbling block to ambitious priests.

By the early Middle Ages, deacons and archdeacons managed church funds and charity, and with their administrative expertise often succeeded their bishops. More than 30 popes in the early church were never ordained a priest!

The solution was a requirement that any man ordained a deacon had to be on the path to priesthood. Because women were never priests, women were ineligible for the diaconate.

Current thinking

Many delegates to the recently ended Synod on Synodality, the Vatican summit on the Church's future, made it clear that they believed the diaconate should be opened to women.

The best they were offered was a promise that the subject was open for further study.

Yet there is a pontifical brick wall ahead. As Francis told O'Donnell, "Women are of great service as women, not as ministers. As ministers in this regard. Within the Holy Orders."

He seems to have slammed shut the door to recovering the church's tradition on deacons, simultaneously enabling the international walkout of women and men from Catholicism.

Yes, the Catholic population is growing in developing countries, but Church government and charity are supported by donations from nations where people of wealth and even moderate means have been educated to the baptismal equality of all persons.

They are leaving the Church.

What to do?

Francis' own words must be applied here: "A proper sense of history can help each of us to develop a better sense of proportion and perspective in coming to understand reality as it is and not as we imagine it or would prefer reality to be."

• First published in RNS

• Phyllis Zagano is an award-winning author and scholar specialising in Catholic women's ministry past and present, especially the ancient tradition of women deacons.

It's not just the right words, careful timing, thoughtful stories, our tone and everything else; it's all of it.

Add to the top of the list how we personally live our Catholic faith in our everyday lives, and we have the short list of what matters when trying to connect with our friend, sibling, co-worker, adult child or whomever it might be as we hope to enliven their faith.

Spreading the good news is no simple or one-size-fits-all matter.

But in doing the research for my new book comparing the 53 percent of American Catholics who attend Mass "a few times a year" or "seldom or never" with the 47 percent who attend monthly or more often, I've learned a lot about cultural Catholics.

I want to share a few findings and offer some ways we might better reach them.

Reaching out to cultural Catholics

First, there are some notable areas in which cultural Catholics demonstrate, perhaps surprisingly, high Catholic belief and practice.

In asking if certain beliefs are "essential" or "somewhat essential" to the Catholic faith, more than three-fourths of cultural Catholics say this of Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead (88 percent), helping the poor (82 percent), devotion to Mary (81 percent) and having a pope (77 percent).

These percentages (and many of the others in this article) are lower than frequent attenders' percentages, but they still reveal a strong pull toward certain core Catholic beliefs.

For those concerned about cultural Catholics' desire to pass the faith to their children, there is good news: 62 percent of cultural Catholics agreed that it is important to them that future generations of their family remain Catholic.

The unknown question is how well equipped are these Catholics to actively pass their faith along.

A heartening finding was another 62 percent agree that the sacraments are important to their relationship with God.

Although these Catholics are not receiving the Eucharist regularly, this demonstrates that rites like baptism, first Communion and matrimony are still important to them and for their children to receive.

And many cultural Catholics see themselves as firmly planted within Catholicism.

When asked how likely they are to leave Catholicism on a 1 ("I would never leave the Catholic Church") to 7 ("Yes, I might leave the Catholic Church") scale, 27 percent chose 1, 18 percent selected 2, 10 percent said 3, and 19 responded 4, with only 26 percent spread across the final three choices.

Loosely tethered

At the same time, there are some areas that reveal they are very loosely tethered.

For instance, although 12 percent say the Catholic Church is either "the most" or "among the most" important parts of their life, 42 percent say "quite important to me, but so are many other areas of my life," 35 percent respond, "not terribly important to me," and a final 11 percent say "not very important to me at all."

They are less likely to show that Church teaching on political issues makes a difference to their own opinion.

Frequent Mass attenders are more likely to agree with the Church teaching than cultural Catholics, regardless of whether it is a "blue" or "red" issue.

For example, 44 percent of cultural Catholics agree with the church's opposition to the death penalty, compared to 60 percent of frequent attenders.

And 79 percent of cultural Catholics support access to euthanasia for those "who are terminally ill and in great pain" while only 48 percent of frequent attenders do. And cultural Catholics are less involved than frequent attenders in their local communities, too.

Fortunately, they report overall positive experiences of parish life.

Although they are more likely than frequent attenders to say that parishes are too big and impersonal (50 percent) and that church leaders are out of touch (64 percent), a full 84 percent believe that parish priests do a good job.

Mass attendance

When asked why they don't attend Mass more frequently, two answers rise to the top. First, 45 percent of cultural Catholics say work or family obligations pull them away.

Parish leaders might consider how they can demonstrate the relevance of parish involvement for stronger families and a sense of vocation to one's occupation, especially on days like Christmas and Easter when more cultural Catholics are in attendance.

For example, they might announce the various family- or kid-friendly activities your parish will host on each of the 12 days of Christmas.

Second, 40 percent say they do not attend Mass more often because they are simply not a religious person.

I wonder where we went wrong with so many; when did we fail to show them the meaning and purpose and God's in-breaking in countless ways in our lives? Of course, we are all religious persons.

Some of us simply have yet to discover this. How might we change course and make this more obvious in faith formation programsme?

These are just a few of the findings I uncovered in my analysis.

What can we do?

But a big question we each face in this data is what can I do about it? Not, "What new programme should my diocese or parish start to address this?"

Yes, that is an important question, especially for those in ministry, but it is not the question for all of us.

Instead, we must each ask, "What can I, what can each and every one of us do for the cultural Catholics in our own personal lives?" How do we accompany our parents, neighbours, godchildren, friends and all the rest?

Here is how I would begin: Read more

• Maureen K. Day is a Research Affiliate at the Center for Religion and Civic Culture as well as the Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies, both housed at the University of Southern California.

But by focusing too much on these anecdotal aspects, are we not missing the spiritual depth of his testimony?

The core of Carlo Acutis' message is not inherently juvenile: it is his radical love for the Eucharist, which he called the "highway to heaven."

His practice of attending daily Mass as a transformative encounter with Christ, his ability to blend contemplation with action, prayer with engagement in the digital world—all this speaks to every baptised person, regardless of age or era.

A saint's unique characteristic is their ability to speak to all people at all times.

A projection by adults

The church's tendency to promote "Peter Pan saints"—idealised youthful figures who died before facing the complexities of adulthood—is not new.

Before Carlo Acutis, there were Sts Dominic Savio and Maria Goretti. These figures reveal an ecclesial fascination with an eternal, fantasised youth.

This promotion of devotion to Blessed Carlo comes more from adults (parents, youth ministers, priests) than from young people themselves.

While it claims to resonate with today's young Christians, what is often highlighted is the fantasy of a perfect youth: a well-behaved teenager without rebellion or crises.

Ultimately, Carlo becomes less the patron saint of teenagers and more the patron of what adults wish their teenagers would be.

An inhibiting idealisation

Such idealization can have a discouraging effect on young Catholics.

How can they not feel overwhelmed by these models of early perfection?

The "freshness" and "spontaneity" of adolescent faith are valuable but cannot be the sole spiritual horizon offered to youth.

Christian maturity also involves navigating deserts, persevering over time, and deepening faith through trials. Models of holiness for young people must allow them to envision spiritual growth that extends into adulthood, strengthening their resolve to mature and fulfil their faith.

By emphasizing mimicry—"someone like you"—we risk neglecting the truly inspirational dimension of sainthood. Saints should reveal what we aspire to be, not merely reflect what we already are.

Moreover, by confining Acutis to the role of "saint for the young," the church risks diminishing the universal scope of his testimony.

His way of living the Eucharistic mystery can move an adult as much as a teenager, and his approach to evangelisation through digital tools can inspire a senior as much as a young person.

While age-based segmentation serves understandable pastoral concerns, it ultimately impoverishes the Gospel message.

This also reflects the church's hesitation to allow a genuinely youthful voice that speaks to everyone.

This challenge surfaced in the recent Synod, where many young people felt ignored.

Yes, a 16-year-old in sneakers can teach the whole church about love for the Eucharist, missionary zeal, and service to the poor.

Yes, young people have a rightful place in the church's structure and governance, serving everyone.

The true modernity of Carlo Acutis

Blessed Carlo Acutis undoubtedly deserves canonisation.

But we must stop reducing him to a teenage icon that obscures his core message: his radical Eucharistic witness, which transcends age categories. And we must have the pastoral courage to present young people with a broader array of models of holiness, including figures who navigated the complexities of adult life while remaining faithful to the Gospel ideal.

The true modernity of Carlo Acutis lies not in his sneakers or gaming console but in his ability to make the heart of the Christian faith accessible and desirable.

In this, he is a true saint: one for our time and for all times.

• Clément Barré is a Catholic priest from the Archdiocese of Bordeaux in southwestern France, and a team member of Enfance Adolescence, the diocesan Service for Children and Youth Ministry that aims to foster encounters with Christ, the church, and others among children and adolescents.
• First Published in La Croix International. Republished with permission.

Police were attacked, cars burned, buildings smashed, fires lit, and calls for revolution and to globalise the intifada.

As you might expect, it was the usual suspects: Pro-Palestinian groups, supporters of terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, Marxist radicals, anti-capitalists, anti-NATO activists, and other revolutionaries and anarchists.

Perhaps because of who these protesters were, there was little to no coverage in mainstream media.

Whether such violence by these groups has become normalised so that politicians and media ignore them is hard to know.

What is obvious is a degree of complicity to not put the spotlight on these groups.

While a grab bag of dissidents, they all share a similar aim - the destruction of the West, it's Judeo-Christian values, and the rights and freedoms we have come to cherish.

Add to this a strong dose of antisemitism and you have quite the cocktail.

These are not simply my impressions - these are represented by the words of the protestors themselves, explicitly calling for the destruction of Canada, of the United States, and the Jews and Israel.

Now you would think it would be good for media to shed some light on these people - some who appear to have fled their home countries but thought, for good measure, to bring the violence with them.

But again, no.

There seems to be an increasing inability for politicians and media to focus on who these people are, the beliefs behind them, or what they aim to achieve.

Not only a Canadian problem

In New Zealand, we have the same groups here, and while we have not yet seen this level of violence, the same mindsets prevail.

It is also supported by woke commentators such as Max Harris who wrote recently in The Post of Hezbollah (an indisputable terrorist group) as a legitimate parliamentary party and social service provider in Lebanon.

This has come as quite a surprise to various Lebanese and Iranian friends of mine, as well as to anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of foreign affairs.

As these friends and others have pointed out, The Post has not accepted any rebuttal to such an egregious and biased opinion piece.

Not only do we have to contend with such unbalanced opinion pieces, but also to have events that do not support the narrative (such as violent riots in Montreal) being ignored.

More positively, the response from Canada's Conservative Party leader, Pierre Poilievre, has been 100% spot on.

He also rightly targets Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who, while Montreal burned, danced away at a Taylor Swift concert and again finds it near impossible to call out the ‘who' involved. Pierre writes:

You [Justin Trudeau] act surprised. We are reaping what you sowed.

This is what happens when a Prime Minister spends 9 years pushing toxic woke identity politics, dividing and subdividing people by race, gender, vaccine status, religion, region, age, wealth, etc.

On top of driving people apart, you systematically break what used to bring us together, saying Canada is a "post-national state" with "no core identity."

You erased our veterans and military, the Famous Five and even Terry Fox from our passport to replace them with meaningless squirrels, snowflakes and a drawing of yourself swimming as a boy.

You opened the borders to terrorists and lawbreakers and called anyone who questioned it racist.

You send out your MPs to say one thing in a mosque and the opposite in a synagogue, one thing in a mandir and the opposite in a gurdwara.

You have made Canada a playground for foreign interference. You allowed Iran's IRGC terrorists to legally operate here for four years after they murdered 55 of our citizens in a major unprovoked attack.

You passed laws that release rampant offenders from prison within hours of their 80th arrest. And what is the result? Assassinations on Canadian soil, firebombings of synagogues, extremist violence against mandirs and gurdwaras, over 100 churches burned or vandalized (with barely any condemnation from you), all for a total 251% more hate crime.

And, while you were dancing, Montreal was burning. We won't let you divide us anymore. Call an election now. We will fire you and reclaim our citizenship, our values, our lives, our freedom and, most of all, our country.

• Simon O'Connor works for Family First and writes a regular blog on Substack.
• Republished with permission.

Suffice it to say, the communication surrounding the papal visit to Corsica - a French island in the Mediterranean sea - has been uncertain at best. One might even describe it as erratic.

As you read this, the pope's visit to Ajaccio, the capital of the Mediterranean island, has been confirmed.

However, details about the timing of the Pope's visit kept people guessing, and late last week, two reliable sources assured an announcement would be made November 16.

Two others, equally reliable, suggested November 18.

And another one announced November 20. Recently, numerous local media outlets have mentioned an "imminent announcement," "in the next few hours," "tomorrow," or "in the coming days."

These inconsistencies stem from more than just a lack of sources or corroboration. In 2013, Francis was elected pope with a clear mandate to restore order to a Curia weakened by scandals.

While he has partially reformed it, he has mainly established a highly personal style of governance that frequently circumvents his own administration. Under Francis, a "Vatican source," even a "high" one, is not always "well-informed."

Legacy

"Is this trip to Corsica real?" an influential member of the French episcopate reportedly asked a representative of the Vatican's diplomatic services in October.

This query was the first time that the member of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, responsible for relations with states, heard of this possible trip.

The study of a potential trip to Corsica has been conducted in strict secrecy at the Vatican, in direct connection with the diocese.

Parts of the Secretariat of State, the French Bishops' Conference, the French Presidency, and the French Embassy to the Holy See were only informed late in the process.

An official invitation, a prerequisite for envisioning the pope on French soil, was requested from the French Presidency at the beginning of November, which reportedly sent it.

A Vatican delegation recently traveled to Corsica to arrange technical details.

The secrecy around this information is open to interpretation. Vatican "sources" remained divided on the matter. Should Francis be seen as a master strategist who wants to keep his options open with respect to the Curia or the agenda of an embattled Emmanuel Macron?

"I think this trip to Corsica is more of an impulsive or heartfelt decision, tied to his friendship with (the Bishop of Ajaccio, François) Bustillo, whom he made a cardinal," said a close papal confidant.

This less political theory doesn't preclude concern: "At nearly 88 years old and with this modus operandi, I worry that some of Francis' choices might be less understood and could damage his legacy." But again, who knows?

Two others, equally reliable, suggested November 18. And another one announced November 20. Recently, numerous local media outlets have mentioned an "imminent announcement," "in the next few hours," "tomorrow," or "in the coming days."

These inconsistencies stem from more than just a lack of sources or corroboration. In 2013, Francis was elected pope with a clear mandate to restore order to a Curia weakened by scandals.

While he has partially reformed it, he has mainly established a highly personal style of governance that frequently circumvents his own administration. Under Francis, a "Vatican source," even a "high" one, is not always "well-informed."

Legacy

"Is this trip to Corsica real?" an influential member of the French episcopate reportedly asked a representative of the Vatican's diplomatic services in October. This query was the first time that the member of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, responsible for relations with states, heard of this possible trip.

The study of a potential trip to Corsica has been conducted in strict secrecy at the Vatican, in direct connection with the diocese. Parts of the Secretariat of State, the French Bishops' Conference, the French Presidency, and the French Embassy to the Holy See were only informed late in the process.

An official invitation, a prerequisite for envisioning the pope on French soil, was requested from the French Presidency at the beginning of November, which reportedly sent it.

A Vatican delegation recently travelled to Corsica to arrange technical details.

The secrecy around this information is open to interpretation. Vatican "sources" remained divided on the matter. Should Francis be seen as a master strategist who wants to keep his options open with respect to the Curia or the agenda of an embattled Emmanuel Macron?

"I think this trip to Corsica is more of an impulsive or heartfelt decision, tied to his friendship with (the Bishop of Ajaccio, François) Bustillo, whom he made a cardinal," said a close papal confidant.

This less political theory doesn't preclude concern: "At nearly 88 years old and with this modus operandi, I worry that some of Francis' choices might be less understood and could damage his legacy."

But again, who knows?

• First published in La Croix
• Mikael Corre is a journalist and senior reporter at La Croix L'Hebdo.
• This piece was written before the Vatican confirmed Pope Francis' visit. It has been edited to reflect the confirmation of the visit.

In a letter that needed to be short, it is hard to know what language the bishops could have used to make their apology more comprehensive than it is.

Certainly, the apology needed to acknowledge, above all, Church leaders' own failures for inadequate handling of offenders and inadequate support for victims/survivors.

But as leaders, it also fell to them to apologise, as far as possible, for all offending within the Church.

In their own way, I think the bishops were trying to do all this, while acknowledging that "words alone can never replace what was stolen and can never fully restore that which was destroyed."

Responsibility and abuse

But when Joe claims that the bishops fail to take "full responsibility" he seems to mean "sole responsibility," because he says that, "through the apology and the lament", Sunday congregations were being "co-opted into sharing responsibility for their leaders' actions" and called to "become complicit in the leaders' sins".

Surely, the apology needed to encompass the failures of bishops, priests, religious and laity, because anything less would not have respected what victims/survivors have been telling us.

Joe's claim that using the occasion of a Sunday Mass was itself "a subtle form of abuse", and that it had "no rightful place in the Sunday liturgy" is surely unrealistic.

Real life

This was not the time for esoteric distinctions between laments, symbols of shame, public and private repentance, etc. Liturgy has to be incarnate in real life!

Real life includes: the right of victims/survivors and the Catholic people to hear the apology as directly as possible and not just via public media.

In real life, the time when most Catholics gather is at Sunday Masses. In the course of every year, special causes are occasionally featured without prejudice to the Sunday's primary meaning.

In real life, a letter that needs to be short is never going to say everything that everybody wants it to say.

And in real life, most sexual offending occurs in homes or among relatives, and most vocations to priesthood and religious life come from homes. The apology and the lament were an occasion for all of us.

I think our congregations would have been pleased to hear the bishops' apology, and appreciated the opportunity to participate in a form of communal lament, and would have recognised the need for it to be on a Sunday.

• Copy supplied
• Bishop Peter Cullinane (pictured) is Bishop Emeritus, Diocese of Palmerston North.

The members of the Synod on Synodality recognized that this is a problem and in their final document expressed the desire "that the People of God have a greater voice in choosing bishops."

Current process

The current selection process is centralized in the Vatican, giving the pope ultimate authority in the process.

It begins with the bishops of a province drawing up a list of priests they think could be candidates for the episcopacy.

These names are given to the nuncio, the pope's representative in a country, who is responsible for drawing up a terna, a list of three candidates for a vacant see.

He can nominate someone outside of these lists if he wants.

The nuncio writes a report on each candidate using any source available, including a confidential questionnaire that he sends to selected clergy and laypeople who know the candidate.

This questionnaire, which has been revised in different papacies, was secret until I first published it in America magazine in 1984.

Normally, the nuncio also asks the opinion of the bishops of the province as well as officers of the bishops' conference and other important prelates in the country.

The nuncio writes a report describing the diocese needing a new bishop.

Pio Laghi, the pope's representative to the United States from 1980-1990, compared the process to an architect trying to find a statue of a saint to fit a niche in a cathedral.

For example, if the diocese had been rocked by sexual abuse, they would look for someone who has credibility in dealing with abuse.

If the diocese was in financial straits, they would look for a fundraiser with financial skills. If the diocese was divided, they would look for a peacemaker.

Papal criteria

Each pope also has criteria that he wants the nuncio to look for in candidates.

Prior to the Second Vatican Council, many complained that the American bishops were more like bankers and builders than pastors. Paul VI wanted more pastoral bishops. John Paul II stressed the importance of unity with and loyalty to the papacy.

Pope Francis wants bishops who are pastoral and close to the poor, "shepherds who smell like their sheep."

The terna and reports are sent to the Dicastery for Bishops, where they are examined by the staff and submitted to the committee of cardinals and bishops in charge of the dicastery.

If they don't like the candidates, the nuncio is asked to submit another list.

Ultimately, the committee votes on the candidates and submits its recommendation to the pope, who can accept or reject their suggestion.

There is very little room in the process for input from the clergy and laity of the diocese, except for the individuals who are sent questionnaires by the nuncio.

The process does allow for consulting the local church about the needs of the diocese and the type of bishop needed, but people usually want Jesus Christ with an MBA from Harvard, and he is not available.

Under the current rules, there can be no public discussion of names, either for or against. The Vatican believes any public discussion of candidates would be divisive and lead to factions supporting and opposing candidates.

The central role of the pope in the selection of bishops is a modern phenomenon. In the early church, when a bishop died, the people would gather in the cathedral and choose a new bishop, who could be a priest or layman.

Eventually, the suffrage was limited to the clergy or a part of the clergy, for example, the cathedral chapter.

But this did not necessarily eliminate the laity from the process. Pope Leo the Great in the fifth century believed a true bishop should be elected by the clergy, accepted by the people and ordained by the bishops of the surrounding dioceses.

Sadly, as the church grew rich and powerful, kings and nobles interfered in the process through threats or bribery. With the destruction of the monarchies in the 19th century, reformers saw the papacy as the institution that would appoint bishops who would serve the good of the church rather than the political ends of the state.

Electing bishops

Today, reformers would like to see the church return to the more ancient practice of electing bishops at the local level, either by the laity or the clergy.

While this might work in democratic countries that respect the independence of the church, history warns us that political elites and dictators would likely interfere in the elections.

In addition, the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president should make progressives pause before they democratize the church. Democracy is not infallible.

The Synod on Synodality is inviting us to a conversation about how to give the people a greater voice in the selection of bishops. This conversation should be done in a synodal fashion where we listen to all voices in determining where the Spirit is leading us today.

Diocesan consultative bodies (presbyteral councils, pastoral councils, synods) should be given a role since they are representative of the laity and priests. Could they nominate candidates or be given a consultative vote on the terna prepared by the nuncio? Should such participation be public or confidential?

The Catholic Church could also learn from other churches that use different methods of choosing their leaders.

All this discussion could lead to the development of several models of selecting bishops that could be tested in various situations at the discretion of a nuncio.

History shows us that bishops have been selected in many ways over the centuries, and each way had its problems. There is no perfect way of selecting bishops. Even Jesus got it wrong one out of 12 times.

Pope Leo was wise in proposing a system of checks and balances that involved the clergy, laity and the college of bishops. It is time to experiment with new ways of selecting bishops so "that the People of God have a greater voice in choosing bishops."

• First published by RNS
• The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at RNS.

This branch of Christianity encompasses some 85 million members in churches across the world. Most of them originated with missionary efforts in the colonial era, including America's Episcopal Church. The archbishop is no pope, and these national churches are self-governing.

There will soon be a new archbishop, due to emergency circumstances. Justin Welby, whose term would normally have ended when he reaches age 70 in 2026, last week became the first archbishop ever to resign, and will depart as soon as feasible.

An independent investigation denounced Welby's handling of a ruinous scandal involving the late John Smyth, a prominent lawyer and lay churchman, who committed "prolific, brutal and horrific" physical, emotional and sexual abuse of boys at evangelical camps in Britain and Africa.

Welby initially vowed to stay on but ensuing church and societal fury made his continuing leadership untenable. Other church figures may also be toppled.

Intriguing and secretive

The Church of England will now undergo many months of intriguing and largely secretive work to find a new archbishop untainted by the scandal.

Adding to the buzz, the Church of England has had female bishops since 2015 so for the first time women are potential candidates to lead world Anglicanism and its mother church.

The new appointee will face huge challenges.

The church is suffering serious decline in a secularsing England. A Foreign Policy magazine analysis sees the archbishop's job as "impossible" amid the worst "crisis" since King Henry VIII's 16th Century break from Roman Catholicism.

And then some churches in Africa no longer recognisze the archbishop as their global leader because England's bishops agreed last year to allow church blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Responding to Welby's scandal-ridden departure, Archbishop Stephen Mugalu of Uganda said "unfortunately, this is the same compromised leadership that has led to the fabric of the Anglican Communion being torn at its deepest level."

The archbishop will be appointed pro forma by King Charles III in his role as the Supreme Governor of the church.

Paradoxically, he will receive the name of the person he is to appoint from an atheist, Keir Starmer, who became Britain's prime minister with the Labour Party victory on July 4.

If the scandal had erupted earlier, the new archbishop's name would have been presented by Starmer's predecessor Rishi Sunak, an adherent of Hinduism.

Prior Prime Minister Boris Johnson was Catholic, and members of that church were barred from participation in Anglican affairs under terms of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, the deal that allowed Catholics to hold public office.

Government entanglements

Such is the situation when England's church is "established" and entangled with government in a way that would be unthinkable in the United States - though far less so now than in former times.

A November 15 press release from the government Cabinet Office summarizes the process for choosing the new archbishop. In the first phase, the church will conduct internal consultations on what's needed in England and in the Anglican Communion.

The Crown Nominations Commission, which handles bishop appointments, will assess potential candidates and choose the finalist.

Starmer appoints the lay Anglican who chairs this commission.

Its other members are the Archbishop of York or else a bishop elected by England's hierarchy, a second elected bishop, in this case three delegates elected by a committee of the historic Canterbury diocese, three priests and three lay members elected by the church's General Synod.

Since a 2023 Synod innovation there are also five foreigners representing regions of the Anglican Communion.

There are three non-voting members: Starmer's appointments secretary, Welby's appointments secretary, and (another innovation) the secretary general of the Anglican Communion.

After investigations, the commission will elect its preferred candidate, and probably also a second "appointable" bishop in case the first choice cannot serve for any reason.

In 2007, Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a Scottish pastor's son, established the policy that the prime minister "has no active role in the decision," as the government release explained things, thus limiting secular political influence. Starmer will automatically send the commission's recommendation to the king.

Twice unable to decide

By coincidence, in September England's bishops decided to propose changes in the system to the General Synod after the Crown Nominations Commission could not agree on two bishop nominations.

Under the new plan, the necessary margin for approval would be reduced from two-thirds to 60 percent, the Archbishops of Canterbury or York could break a deadlock, and commission members would no longer vote by secret ballot.

The early speculation includes several women candidates and three with international backgrounds. Guli Francis-Dehqani's father, the bishop of Iran, was nearly assassinated and her brother was murdered. Martyn Snow was raised in Indonesia by missionary parents, and Graham Usher was likewise raised in Ghana.

Meanwhile, some are demanding that the Canberbury hierarch and other bishops no longer hold the traditional 26 seats in the House of Lords, a chamber of Britain's Parliament.

As for church and state more broadly, Prince William, the king-in-waiting, is thought to be less devoted to church matters than King Charles.

Ruth Gledhill, former religion correspondent with The Times, carps that "dis-establishment in some form is looking increasingly likely in a future that seems less distant by the day.

That's if there's anything left to dis-establish."

• This article was originally published at Patheos; it was republished by Religion Unplugged
• Richard N. Ostling was a longtime religion writer with The Associated Press and with Time magazine.

The 96 reflections are the result of a call from O'Connor, whose blogs on the Food for Faith website have, for about 10 years, elicited thoughtful responses from worldwide readers.

"My perspective and experience may have been interesting for others but more significantly my reflections seemed to encourage readers to share their own testimony," O'Connor writes in his introduction to the just-released book.

"From this moment my daily delight was hearing from others who contributed their personal experiences of God in the joys, hopes, griefs and anxieties of their own lives."

At Easter this year, he asked readers if they would share, in no more than 400 words, their experiences of an encounter with God.

He said he would assemble them into Fifth Gospel Living, a contemporary account from 21st-century ‘gospel writers' who live in their own ‘holy lands' with God in Jesus Christ by their side.

While several names are recognised as academics, writers, sports professionals, and religious figures, including retired bishops, most aren't. They are us.

So, what does a personal encounter with God look like to these storytellers, young and not so, Catholic or not, living in the USA, Italy, Australia, the Philippines and Aotearoa, New Zealand?

They speak of gentle days alone in nature; fun with grand-children; deep wells of sadness resulting from child death, family suicide, addictions, disease, divorce and abortion; witnessing peaceful deaths; requests for ‘a dust-sized amount of your power;" Christmas miracles, endless ‘coincidences' (aka the Holy Spirit); doubts, acceptance, trust, presence.

Like Food for Faith, O'Connor's first book, Fifth Gospel Living, is a great little dipper: brief chapters that allow the book to be picked up for as short or as long a period as you like, day or night, offering inspiration, humour, and time to be with God.

The publication is also sprinkled with brief quotes from some of the stories, offering further moments of contemplation.

It's a book that keeps on giving.

A note for anyone particular about grammar. Put it aside for this volume.

O'Connor has purposely edited "only when required, seeking to retain unique and personal turns of phrase, twists of grammar and colour of expression."

As he says, this reflects the 'richness of cultural and educational diversity in the contributors' and, as an observation, requires the reader to slow down, which is no bad thing.

Maybe you have your version of witnessing ‘the radioactive decay of the atom 156/72Hf" while going to receive Holy Communion or Jesus approaching you with a tray of apples and ice cream. O'Connor would be pleased to hear about it.

Fifth Gospel Living; a Christmas gift that keeps on giving is available at www.copypress.co.nz

Fifth Gospel Living is $35, it is published in 2024 by John O'Connor. Cover Design: Chiara Albrecht.

• Catherine Perry is a member of the Ponsonby Herne Bay parish.

Those who took part in the hikoi, along with supporters around the country, both Maori and non-Maori, consider the Bill to be a betrayal of the commitments made at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Waitangi Tribunal has voiced its deep concern.

It says if the Bill were to be enacted, it would fundamentally change the nature of the partnership between the Crown and Maori by "substituting existing Treaty principles for a set of propositions which bear no resemblance to the text or spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi".

Likewise, in September this year, 440 Christian leaders signed an open letter to MPs urging them to oppose the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill. Why should this be a matter of concern to Christian leaders?

The Covenant

Soon after the Treaty had been signed in 1840, Maori began to refer to the Treaty as a covenant. This is biblical language.

Covenant is the word used to describe an unconditional commitment that God makes to humankind.

It is a commitment grounded in love and describes a relationship that is to be unbreakable and in which the parties involved seek the welfare of the other come what may, "in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, till death do us part", as the traditional vows of the marriage covenant put it.

Maori understood, apparently, that the Treaty established a relationship of this sort.

God's faithfulness and steadfast love and, derivatively, the faithfulness and commitment of marriage partners to one another was the model for the relationship established between the Crown and Maori signatories on behalf of their respective iwi.

Imagine then their dismay when the betrayals began, first with the seizure and illegal confiscation of land, then with the Native Lands Act, then with the efforts to suppress Maori language and culture.

Then came betrayals with the Tohunga Suppression Act, then with the payment of a pension to Maori during the 1920s and 30s at a rate 25 percent lower than non-Maori received, and so on and on.

The Treaty Principles Bill is yet another attempt to annul the promise of the covenant relationship that Maori saw embodied in the Treaty.

Biblical concepts

There were other biblical concepts in play when the Treaty was signed.

The word used in Te Tiriti, the Maori translation of the Treaty, to describe the authority being granted to the Crown is "kawanatanga".

That is not a native Maori word. It is a word coined to translate the term governorship. The governor in English became the kawana in te reo Maori.

Such a word was needed to translate the office held by Pontius Pilate, who is described in Matthew 27:15-26 as the governor.

Pilate, of course, was not the Emperor, he was not sovereign. He was an official answerable to a higher authority elsewhere and had strictly circumscribed authority himself.

His primary role was to maintain law and order. This was the level of authority being accorded to the Crown in the first article of the Treaty.

What kind of authority is then assigned to Maori in the second article? The words used in this case are ‘tino rangatiratanga'.

Rangatiratanga means chieftainship, sovereignty, self-determination.

It too appears in the Maori translation of the Bible, notably in the Lord's prayer, where the disciples of Jesus are enjoined to approach God with the prayer ‘Your kingdom come' — Kia tae mai tou rangatiratanga.

Then at the conclusion of the prayer they are instructed to pray, "For yours is the kingdom ..." — Nou hoki te rangatiratanga.

The modifier "tino" used before rangatiratanga in the second article of the Treaty heightens the quality being referred to. It means that something is unrivalled or of great intensity.

Within the framework of biblical thought, with which Maori had now become very familiar and which the Reverend Henry Williams, translator of the Treaty, likely appealed to when encouraging the chiefs to sign, rangatiratanga is clearly a more elevated authority than kawanatanga.

The biblical provenance of the language used in Te Tiriti should dissuade us, therefore, from the frequently heard contention that in signing Te Tiriti Maori ceded sovereignty.

What they ceded was kawanatanga, the same kind of authority to maintain law and order that Pontius Pilate held as Governor of Judaea.

It was promised to Maori in return that they should retain their already existing tino rangatiratanga, their sovereignty, over "o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa", that is, over their lands, their homes (or habitats) and over all their treasures.

With the Native Lands Act of 1863, a mere 23 years after the signing of the Treaty, this promise had been betrayed, the land confiscations had begun.

Rebuild relationships

Far from betraying further through the Treaty Principles Bill the covenant relationship that was understood to have been established at Waitangi in 1840, we should instead be devoting our efforts to rebuilding the relationship on the terms that were first agreed.

• Republished with permission of the ODT
• Murray Rae is a University of Otago professor of theology.

There has been a huge public debate about whether there is sufficient direct evidence of harm to introduce this regulation.

The players in this debate include academics, mental health organisations, advocacy groups and digital education providers. Few step back to look at the entire research landscape.

Social media has become integral to everyday life.

Not many teens want to be extensively researched, so studies are pragmatic, require consent and findings are limited. As a result, we tend to hear that the effects are small or even inconclusive.

For the public it's crucial to understand all research studies have limitations, and must be interpreted within the context in which the data was collected. To understand any report, we must scrutinise the details.

Several mechanisms are at play

In recent years, anxiety has been on the rise among children and young people.

Understanding why young people are anxious, depressed or overly focused on themselves is no easy task.

When it comes to the potential negative impact of social media, several mechanisms are at play.

To unpack them, data is needed from many angles: examining mood while online, examining mental health over several years, school relationships, even brain scans, to name just a few.

Despite all this complexity, the public tends to mostly hear about it through splashy headlines.

One example is the "small and inconsistent" result from an umbrella study of several meta-analyses totalling 1.9 million children and teenagers.

However, it's important to recognise this umbrella study included many research papers from an earlier time when researchers couldn't measure social media use as accurately as they can now.

One influential data set asked people to leave out time spent "interacting with friends and family" when they estimated their time on social media.

Yet in 2014 to 2015, sharing photos, following, and interacting with people you knew was the main use of social media.

The findings appeared within a larger study a few years later, resulting in one headline that stated: "screen time may be no worse for kids than eating potatoes".

With so many sources of error, it's no wonder there is vigorous debate among researchers over the extent of social media harm. Limitations are par for the course.

Worse, researchers are often not given full access to data from social media companies. That's why we need to pay more attention to big tech whistleblowers who have inside access.

Meanwhile, these companies do have access to the data. They use it to exploit human nature.

Focusing on debates between researchers is a misdirection and makes us complacent. There is enough evidence to demonstrate excessive social media use can be harmful to young people.

Here's what the evidence shows

One argument you may hear a lot is that it's not clear whether depression and anxiety cause higher screen time use, or higher screen time causes more depression and anxiety.

This is known as a bidirectional effect - something that goes both ways.

But that's no reason to ignore potential harms. If anything, bidirectional effects matter more, not less, because factors feed into one another. Unchecked, they cause the problem to grow.

Harms of social media use are shown in studies that examine the effects of sharing selfies, the impact of algorithms, influencers, extreme content, and the growth in cyberbullying.

Social media activates envy, comparisons and fear of missing out, or FOMO. Many teens use social media while procrastinating.

It is through these mechanisms that the links to depression, anxiety, low self esteem and self harm are clear.

Finally, until the age of 16, increased time on social media is associated with feeling less satisfied with appearance and school work.

There is also reliable evidence that limiting social media use reduces levels of anxiety, depression and FOMO in 17-25-year-olds. We ignore this evidence at our peril.

The evidence is sufficient

Understanding the intricacies of how every aspect of modern life affects mental health will take a long time.

The work is difficult, particularly when there is a lack of reliable data from tech companies on screen time.

Yet there is already enough reliable evidence to limit children's exposure to social media for their benefit.

Instead of debating the nuances of research and levels of harm, we should accept that for young people, social media use is negatively affecting their development and their school communities.

In fact, the government's proposed ban of children's social media use has parallels with banning phones in schools.

In 2018, some critics argued that "banning smartphones would stop children gaining the knowledge they needed to cope online".

Yet evidence now shows that smartphone bans in schools have resulted in less need for care around mental health issues, less bullying, and academic improvements - the latter especially for socio-economically disadvantaged girls.

It's time to agree that the harms are there, that they are damaging our community, and that we need strong, thoughtful regulation of social media use in young people.

First published in The Conversation

• Danielle Einstein is Adjunct Fellow, School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University