Money talks and it’s having far too much to say just at the moment. In all its eighty years, our diocese has never before found itself at such a point. But it would be a mistake to think it was all about money. It is not. There are URGENT financial matters that need a solution. (See Money Matters) But we will not come up with the creative answers we need if we have not the wisdom to recognise the great questions that are now before us. The truly great questions being asked of us today, great precisely because they question us and not simply our bank balance, are these.
1. How do we want to see ourselves as the Church?
2. How do we wish to be led?
We urge our readers to consider two possible images of the church before attempting to answer.

There is this from Pope, St Pius X, writing in 1906, “The one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” And then there is this from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5 verse 1. “Seeing the crowds, Jesus went up the hill, there he sat down and was joined by his disciples. Then he began to speak. This is what he taught them.” Pius X may be closer to us in time, but it is the words of the Gospel that still strike home, urgent, pressing and highly instructive. The day-to-day running of a diocese needs to be judged against the background of the Gospel, and Matthew 5:1 is as good a place to start as any.

The Gospel clearly tells us that, “Seeing the crowds” Jesus went up the hill. The crowds are still there, hungry for the Gospel, even if they protest otherwise. They will not be satisfied by a Pastoral Plan that is merely the by-product of good housekeeping. The recent request from the Trustees for all diocesan agencies, including this paper, to cut their expenditure by 25%, may be hailed by some as common sense, but it ignores the “crowds” altogether. There is not one vestige of the Gospel in such thinking. On its own, financial management will only serve to get us further away form the proper work of the Church. In succeeding generations, our forefathers refused to be dictated to either by persecution or lack of funds. Neither should we.

All reasonable people will recognise the need to ensure good management of our affairs. This Paper has been actively trying to find ways of raising money ever since we were made aware of the situation. But we should not decide on any plan of action on the basis of finance alone. No thought is given to the inherent value of the work being done by these agencies. There is just a crude blanket demand for 25%. Meantime, sacred cows abound. Our parishes creak with redundant buildings, virtually abandoned as time moves us on. Yet, we recently made a quite unsustainable promise that no parish would be closed. Our schools too. If we did not already have them would we really see them as the answer to the hunger of today’s crowds? Reluctant to face local nostalgia, we are willing to hem ourselves in, rather than recognise the only horizon there can possibly be to the church’s work, the hunger of the crowds. It is possible that some parishes ought to be closed, not simply to save money or because of lack of priests, but to make us more effective in reaching the crowds. Is there no one to step forward and ask the obvious question: what are we here for?

The Trustees should not seek to dictate the agenda. They should listen to the proper business of the diocese and guide us safely through whatever demands this makes on us in the ways of the world. Yet we can hardly blame them. How can they know which way to turn since we lack a coherent agenda? We seem content simply to be there, so many bland notice boards by so many roadsides, unsure what to say to the 21st century as it flows past. Mere survival our only hope! To think as we are thinking just now is a mistake. To persevere in it may prove scandalous.

We have an inherited way of getting things done in this diocese, based on a strictly hierarchical image of the church, as if the Lord himself had ordained it so. A cloud of secrecy is used to obscure even the humblest parts of this process as if to claim some kind of sacred presence. This clerically controlled modus operandi has been in place for so long that many Catholics pay no great heed to it and accept it as if it were the church itself. It is no such thing. Yet dare to question the whole process and you are immediately accused of being divisive. But if we are not prepared to question the system we have inherited, a huge section of the church (the laity) is denied a genuine voice. Lay Advisers are all very well, but the diocesan family needs lay people not simply for the skills and talents of their secular training, but much more so for the gifts with which they have been endowed by the Holy Spirit. In reality, our inherited way of doing things is failing in its presumed purpose; promoting the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the faithful. It does not have to be this way.

People may not like the sound of this. For some, the secretive, “nudge it along” approach has a certain attraction. It may even feed their ambition. Others, it must be said, work loyally within the system, with great dedication. They work very long hours with little heed for their health or leisure and without any thought of financial reward. But sadly, they seem handicapped by their own innate reluctance to see “change” as anything other than a problem. It never occurs to them that “Change” can be the breath of God enabling us to speak in tongues understandable to the crowds of our time. Still others refuse to see the laity except as Pius X described them. And of course there will always be those who think they appear virtuous if they accuse this Paper and its editor of impertinence. Let’s have done with all this. The greatest loyalty is often shown in faithful dissent, the deepest betrayal clothed in cosy conformity.

Not infrequently, outspoken editorials such as this bring furtive nudges of support, but always with a privacy note attached. This is simply not good enough. Readers must be in no doubt, nothing of lasting value will happen unless enough of us care and care enough to be heard. The change that is needed is not a matter of tactics. Neither must it be reduced to cosmetics. The change that is needed is a change in the way we do things that comes from a genuine change of heart. “Common sense,” if such it be, must give way to the daring of the Gospel. Financial crisis, may be just the opportunity we needed to think and act differently. Mission is not something we do once we have sorted out our financial problems. There will be no long-term solution to our problems unless we first engage with mission, because mission and mission alone will show us our true priorities and teach us how and where we should be spending our money. And if the term “mission” does not exactly reek of Roman Catholic incense, then it may be high time we got together and accustomed ourselves to a different fragrance. If we are ever to change, we must learn to see through the “holy smoke” of our cosy devotions and recognise the crowds waiting to hear from us. Some of their faces may be alarmingly familiar.

If we insist on treating the church merely as a resource for our own personal needs, if we content ourselves with our favourite devotions and ignore what the church is actually here for, we will surely wither on the Vine. We should not become so pre-occupied with “Clustering" and the like, that the Lord is left alone on the hillside to watch the crowds. Concentrating on the job that Jesus Christ has given us to do, rather than on emergency repairs to the system we’ve inherited, is the only way to find answers that will last. At present the answers to our problems are obscured by our sheer preoccupation with the problems themselves. We need to look well and in depth at our customary ways of getting things done in this diocese. Let’s make a bonfire of the sound-bytes. We need a fourth review more urgently than we ever needed the other three.