Meeting 24 May 2023

Archbishop’s Council of Priests

Wednesday, 24 May 2023 

Summary of Meeting

Welcome:
Chair formally opened meeting which took place at St Patrick’s Centre, East Melbourne. 

Apologies were received from Frs Jim Clarke and Richard Rosse

OPENING PRAYER:

The following items were covered during the meeting:

ARCHBISHOP’S COMMENTS

The following points were made by the Archbishop:

A.  PLENARY COUNCIL:

The decrees of the Plenary Council are yet to be promulgated, but the Archbishop has already started the process of looking at the decrees that relate to the Archdiocese, parishes and local agencies and the processes that need to be put in place to bring these about.  
One of the decisions of the Plenary Council was around each Diocese holding a Synod There has been some initial thought to timing as it must be held within 5 years, and work needs to be done around purpose, and the building of an Agenda.

Responses from Council Members:

• What is the purpose of a Diocesan Synod? – what would be its continuum?
  Take the Way of the Gospel might be the agenda to start with.

• To be seen in continuity with what is already being done.

• The 2018, 600 pages of Diocesan submission to Plenary Council is already a document that can provide some input into a Diocesan Synod.

Also related to this is the thinking of a ‘Diocesan Council’ – for consideration about the ongoing life of the Diocese.

B.  RE-ESTABLISHING DEANERIES:

The Archbishop articulated there has been an ad hoc working of Deaneries and Zones over recent years and is wondering about re-establish Deaneries, or at least explore and develop better lines of engagement.

Responses from Council Members:

•  Melbourne has never had Deaneries in the canonical sense. They have been generally ‘agreed areas’ led by a Deanery Co-ordinator (not a Vicar Forane).

•  Consider looking at collaboration in Mission areas for cooperation.

• The Regions are too big to do anything. It would make more sense to be more targeted.

• We don’t have a clear definition of what a ‘mission’ is. There could be confusion if the concept of deanery is re-introduced.

C. MACS AND EARLY LEARNING CENTRES

• MACS has approached the Archbishop indicating that they are interested in taking up the opportunity to establish Early Learning Centres and drawing on the current opportunity to be assisted with Government funding (which is available now). Questions for consideration if this were to be diocesan-wide, include whether it is undertaken by parishes, welfare agencies, or schools? MACS is keen to be the provider at this point, and hence a decision must be made soon. A key argument is the benefits in providing an educational pathway for families.

Responses from Council Members:

• Students will be in other centres regardless.

• Where do we find the right people to run this? Dedicated.

• From a Parish Priest point of view, beneficial in terms of rental. 

• Good for intentional engagement, and for opening up minds to faith and mission.

•  Business model is quite separate, and we would need a separate entity running it.

•  It is educational and could be run through MACS.

•  Important to talk with CAM Property and Development Office who have experience in various models.

•  This might be a way of guaranteeing regular financial support for Parishes that don’t have an alternate income stream.

•  What are the considerations with existing RUBLAs?

•  What constraints would Government funding call on?

• A Gospel investment.

•  Need to be clear about what an ‘Early Learning Centre ‘means.

•  We need to build schools in growth corridors.

Generally agreed that the proposal is worth further exploration.

·         D. CCI UPDATE:

The ACBC is continuing to work towards a new insurer for Catholic entities.

Following the Archbishops comments the other agenda items included:

• ACOP Succession planning and amendments to ACOP Statues
  Elections:

·         Agreement that elections for the four regions can take place before the next Council meeting in September.

·         Archbishop’s Appointments take place following the elections.

·         Those not continuing will not be on the Agenda Committee.

·         Until Office bearers are decided, the Archbishop; Fr Joe Caddy and Fr Dean Mathieson will set up the next meeting.

·         Initial meeting of the new Council – will be about election of Office bearers and understanding of the new Council.

·         One member from each region will need to vacate.

·         The Electoral Committee to look after the regional representations noting:

EAST: Fr Mark Reynolds to stay; Fr Brendan Reed to leave.

WEST: Fr Jim Clarke to stay; Mgr Charles Portelli to leave.

SOUTH: Fr Jerome Santamaria to stay; Fr Brendan Lane to leave.

NORTH: Fr Steve Rigo to stay; Fr Tony Feeney to leave.

·  REGIONAL REPORTS

NORTH: Fr Steve Rigo – There needs to be more definition about what ‘mission’ is. Concern expressed that with educational governance changes there has been a lack of communication between MACS and Parish Priests, and a lack of continuity of the good relationships priests had with schools. Letter from Dr Edward Simons regarding the ECSI program did not indicate what we are moving to. Where are we with $1 rent between schools and parishes – what is the future? Priests enjoy solidarity as a small group – the regional gathering is too big. We don’t get together enough.

SOUTH: Fr Jerome Santamaria – People are at different stages. Some want leadership, some don’t. School Chaplaincy – not sure if there is any development on this. Are APs being made a Chaplain? Any guidance on Transgender issues?

WEST: Mgr Charles Portelli - Noted that for the regional consultation on Take the Way of the Gospel a number of people were not invited – including APs, and those representing schools. A request for 6 x Council of Priest meetings per year.

EAST: Fr Mark Reynolds – Positive feedback on regional gathering. Acknowledging that there are issues with those who do not want to change. Challenges of administration for smaller groups, and good talk about initiatives at a local level.

ACTION: Matters emerging from Regional Meeting reports to go to the Agenda Committee.

TAKE THE WAY OF THE GOSPEL UPDATE and REGIONAL MEETINGS
Very Rev Joe Caddy and Cath Garner

A report has been compiled from the first series of forums, which will be distributed. Two questions were posed to the regional groups gathered, and responses were synthesised into themes:

QUESTION 1:
How might we best express the missionary vision of our Archdiocese?

Outward looking faith: Appetite for renewal. Opportunity.

Community: Enhancing a sense of belonging. Expression of concern that parishes do not become isolated silos.

Communication: A clear vision, strengthening a shard communication and being part of a common Church.

QUESTION 2:
What support do parishes need to bring about this desired future?

Formation – create a ‘fire in the belly for Jesus’…directed towards evangelisation.

Recognition of better support for Clergy – load reduced.

Resources and strategies for evangelisation.

The Council posed some further thoughts for consideration:

-       Regional meetings were excellent. The sense of perspective over the journey was really valuable, and took the narrative away from just being about ‘us’.

-       The story of Melbourne was about responding to need.

-       Strengthening around information on Pastors in Solidum.

-       Availability of models that are currently being used in partnered parishes.

-       Formation of clergy and understanding at what stage in their ministry are they at.

-       You lose people if the action doesn’t take place, and we seem to be currently locked in talking and consultation.

-       Priests will need guidance as to how to initiate conversations.

Next Sessions will be key to help parishes identify what the possible structures might   mean; what are the opportunities for collaboration; and what are the specifics of mission in an operational sense.

FRAMEWORK for PARISH RENEWAL:

The TWG Steering Committee? Advisory Group has developed Vital, Viable, Vibrant parish descriptions in a way that clearly illustrates the areas that need to be addressed. A parish will be able to start anywhere with these, but in the end each area will need to be addressed. A tool has also been developed to enable parishes to assess where they are currently, and where work needs to take place.

Council noted this descriptor was helpful and would be easy for parishes to work through. It would be beneficial for some parishes to access people who would be able to facilitate such discussions, a possibility was also raised that selected priests and their own teams might be available to go out further and help in conversations.

Chair thanked Cath Garner on behalf of the Council for her work

GENERAL BUSINESS
Three items of general business were raised.

The first item in reference to a letter sent out to Principals and provided to Clergy from MACS Executive Director Dr Ed Simons re MACS no longer resources Enhancing Catholic School Identity (ECSI)

The question was raised as to what has informed the decision for MACS to step aside from ECSI. The Archbishop spoke briefly but noted that this could not be addressed fully in the time constraints of this meeting and would provide a further response. He indicated that the former Executive Director, Jim Miles had given him advice in relation to ECSI not being a mandated part of School improvements processes.  He indicated that the CECV may still have a contract with KU Leuven.

ACTION: Archbishop to provide further information around MACS decision re
ECSI.

The second item of general business was around Calvary Hospital ACT.

Father Albert raised the issues of the compulsory acquisition of the Calvary Hospital by the ACT government. 

Council agreed to offer support in this matter to Archbishop Prowse through distribution of a petition that the Archbishop had already set in place. The Archbishop noted that he is looking to organise a meeting of heads of Melbourne Catholic healthcare providers as soon as possible.
ACTION: Social Media distribution of Petition and email to parishes

The third item of general business was a Lockdown
Fr Brendan Lane raised the issue that Covid had devastated us in terms of our mission. Is there anything we can do? Some parishes seemed to fare better than others. What processes and approaches worked in those places that have recovered better than others. It is worth looking into.

ACTION: Will take item to the Agenda committee - and regional meetings as well.

Next Meeting: The next meeting of ACOP will be 6 September 202

The next meeting of the Regions will be on Tuesday 22 August