Proceedings were carefully choreographed and the agenda was deliberately anodyne.

It took several days before participants found their feet.

The 'deep listening' process of scripture reflection and sharing in small groups did engender a spirit of collegiality.

At the same time, it constrained free-flowing discussion and overwhelmed any effective canvassing of the issues confronting the Church. The upshot was a week devoid of strategic focus.

Given that so much time was spent on prayerful reflection, not enough was available to the task at hand. The Catholic community had supplied 17,500 submissions in an initial consultation phase.

Yet the Plenary was not presented with any report on what those submissions contained, nor was it presented with any draft resolutions from the submissions.

It can only be assumed that the Bishops Steering Group deemed the submissions to be of insignificant value to the Assembly.

The expert theologians, scripture scholars, canonists and public policy advisors were kept at a distance. It was if the participants were meant to start from scratch.

What did emerge was the diversity of views over the role and purpose of the Church. Again, no surprise there! Though more important was the lack of clarity over the actual starting point for the conversation.

Participants were constantly reminded that Pope Francis was calling for a Church motivated by a 'missionary impulse'. It seemed fair to assume therefore that the task was to imagine what that looks like for the Church now and into the future.

Yet the daily feedback from the working groups roamed far and wide from personal devotional practices all the way to cutting edge pastoral outreach.

Again, no surprises when you give Catholics free rein!

The situation would be less distressing if there had been an overt recognition of the crisis the Church faces. A crisis that is both of its own making and one that prompts questions about religious belief in our world today.

This crisis needs to be addressed by the Plenary Council in two fundamental areas: internal organisation and pastoral disposition.

On the first, the organisational life of the Church has already been the subject of intense scrutiny by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

One of the seventeen volumes of the Final Report dealt specifically with the Catholic Church. It contained clear recommendations for governance and culture.

Following this, the bishops and religious leaders commissioned a two-year study that produced The Light From the Southern Cross report into governance and cultural issues. These two reports outline a similar roadmap for change.

But the elephant in the room is the authority of bishops.

Christian anthropology insights of the human sciences

Almost before the ink dried on the reports some bishops dismissed their recommendations as an attack on episcopal authority.

Some even went as far to say that the reports would make the Catholic Church too 'Anglican'! Talk of shared governance models and expanding the influential role of the laity, especially women, was a bridge too far for those content with 'business as usual'.

This despite the evidence that most indicators the Church was going backwards.

Calls for Church leaders to introduce measures enhancing best practice accountability and transparency, vital to regaining the public trust lost after the abuse scandal and cover-ups, continue to be met with shrill warnings about erosion of episcopal control.

This issue must be faced head-on. Whether the Church can embark on a new missionary strategy is dependent on getting its own house in order.

That is, demonstrating that the culture to conceal and deal in the dark is over. That best practice governance is commonplace. That transparency in how decisions are made and by whom is the norm.

That the laity, especially more women, are effectively involved in and jointly accountable for the life and future direction of the Church. These are the obvious indicators of a changed culture and structure. One that has some chance of being believed when they say 'trust us'!

On the issue of the pastoral disposition of the Church, the way forward is more fraught. The mindset and culture of our Church is still based on an outmoded understanding of personhood.

Our Christian anthropology has not kept pace with the insights of the human sciences and contemporary understandings of personal development, including sexuality, gender identity and its diversity.

This is a fundamental disconnect for the Church in the Western world. It puts at risk the effectiveness of its mission.

This is particularly the case for the Church's relevance to young people exploring their place in the world; or in bridging the chasm with the LGBTIQA+ people in their full participation in the life of the Church; or in embracing divorced and remarried Catholics, including their reception of the Eucharist.

A more nuanced theology of personhood would better inform our pastoral practice and deliver a genuinely inclusive, compassionate missionary outreach.

This is what the Plenary Council must address. Building trust is a two-way street. Being trusted to act in an ethical manner, both in its business and organisational dealings and in the dealings with people, in and out of the Church, is non-negotiable.

Reaching out with compassion, affirming people, being for others, goes to the heart of a 'missionary impulse'. Doing it without conditions goes to the heart of the Gospel. Anything less looks like 'business as usual'.

• Francis Sullivan AO is Chair of Catholic Social Services Australia and the Mater Group of hospitals. He was previously CEO of the Truth, Justice and Healing Council.
• Published in La-Croix International.

In her new book, When Boys Become Boys, Judy Y. Chu reports on her two-year study in which she followed a group of boys from pre-kindergarten through first grade.

She concluded that most of what we think of as "boy" behaviour isn't natural or authentic to boys, but is something they learn to perform.

Boys aren't stoic or aggressive or hierarchical; they aren't bad at forming relationships or unable to express themselves.

They pick up all these traditional traits of masculinity by adapting to a culture that expects and demands that they do so.

I interviewed Chu about gender roles, relationships, and how boys become boys.

The primary cultural forces you discuss in your book seems to be the boys themselves and their peer group. So it seems like they become boys through learning from other boys; it's boys teaching themselves to be boys. So where do you see the inauthenticity or unnaturalness there?

It's not as though they're arriving in their interactions having come from an isolated place.

They're hearing messages from older siblings, from media, or some of the boys' parents were more conventional in terms of the messages that they were telling them.

So they were hearing messages about masculinity and bringing them to their peer group context. Continue reading.

Source: The Atlantic

Image: Exposure

But just as we condemn the excesses of capitalism, so we should give credit to those who selflessly put their money to good use. They are opposite sides of the same coin.

In any case, philanthropy is not the preserve of the very rich.

On the contrary, research indicates that poorer people contribute proportionately more of their income to charity than the wealthy. And even those without money can be generous in other ways - for example, by giving their time as volunteers.

According to the 2013 World Giving Index, 40% of New Zealanders donate time to good

For ordinary New Zealanders, there have never been more ways to contribute.

Community foundations exploit economies of scale by pooling individual donations, which, on their own, might be too small to make a difference.

Websites such as Givealittle harness the power of crowdfunding.

And at the top of the philanthropic food chain, large trusts and foundations are establishing strategic partnerships and collaborating on large-scale, long-term projects, notably in education and conservation.

Underlying all this is a growing recognition that issues such as unemployment, pest control and social disadvantage are beyond the resources of the state on its own.

Philanthropy at its most effective can strike at root causes where the welfare state can often do little more than provide Band-Aids.

Rather than being seen as relieving the Government of its obligations, it should be viewed as an important adjunct to the state and an indispensable part of what we know as civil society. Continue reading.

This piece comes from the editorial of the current Listener.

Source: The Listener

Image: ADLS