RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR A MEETING BETWEEN WE ARE ALL CHURCH SOUTH AFRICA AND THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE
In October I wrote a detailed letter to the SACBC explaining that at our last meeting with Archbishop Nxumalo, Head of the Theological Advisory Committee (TAC), he had expressed “the hope that WAACSA would be able to assist the bishops in getting the laity more engaged in the mission of the Church in South Africa”. I said that WAACSA would welcome a discussion with the bishops as to how best WAACSA can serve the Church in South Africa. “We believe that a meeting with the bishops would be opportune now in view of their recent decision to establish a laity council within a Department of the Laity”
In November I received a reply from the SACBC Admin Board (chaired by Archbishop Brislin, as President) recommending that WAACSA continue to interact with the TAC so that “meaningful guidelines can be found for WAACSA to make … contributions to the Church”…but… “the Bishops noted that there are inconsistencies in what is contained in your letter pertaining to the Vision /Mission of WAACSA and what appears on your website”
I replied that we felt that a meeting with the bishops would be more productive than further meetings with the TAC, and I also asked for clarification about the “inconsistencies”, so that we could resolve them. After two reminders I received a note from Archbishop Brislin at the end of February 2015 saying that we may contact Archbishop Nxumalo if we wish to have further meetings with the TAC, or we are free to approach any bishop for a meeting. No response was made to my request for clarification about the so-called inconsistencies.
Comment: It is clear that the SACBC does not wish to hear what WAACSA can offer about engaging with the laity more effectively, or indeed to enter into any direct dialogue with WAACSA at this time. This is also not the first time that unsubstantiated allegations have been made about WAACSA by bishops, who then will not answer requests to clarify and resolve the problem, if any
Brian Robertson, National Coordinator, WAACSA
How sad it is that some Bishops seem to regard themselves as being on some lofty plane where they can ignore the voices of their flock – even those laity who wish to assist our beloved Church. And this in the face of pope Francis’ instructions to “dialogue, dialogue” and “smell of their flock” – not to stick their noses into the air and ignore them. As lay frustrations build up, this attitude must surely be at the root of many of the Church’s problems.
It is, in the light of Pope Francis, not only sad but a disobedience, or, at the very least, a negative response to ‘the Chair of Peter’ which is surely fear based. Furthermore, this attitude and response to WAASA ignores the teaching which came out of Vatican II – especially the encyclical Gaudium et Spe,
I would like to remind all of Fr. Larry Kaufman’s talk to WAACSA Cape in April 2013
This had been published in the journal Grace and Truth
St Joseph’s Theological Institute, Cedara (www.sjti.ac.za) – so it is not for re-publication but I presume I can draw attention to some things vitally relevant for us all to remember at this juncture.
This talk was based on The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes – titled in English “The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World”
His concern in this lecture is about the significance of Gaudium et Spes in two areas: (1) its methodology, and (2) its expanded vision of the Church’s catholicity.
Under (1) he notes that ‘the world has moved on’ since the doc was produced but hopes to show that where it continues to remain relevant and even revolutionary is in its theological and pastoral method.
Some highlights relevant to our relationship with the SACBC:
i) [the doc] seeks to adopt in its desire for dialogue between the Church and the world, its ‘joy and hope, grief and anguish’
ii) [The latter being]: the important quality of empathy which is necessary for any true dialogue to take place.
iii) It is only by entering into the others’ experience and expressing understanding and compassion that we begin to find a common language in which to converse. The document speaks of using ‘language intelligible to every generation’. (GS4)
iv) If people are troubled and perplexed about current trends then the Church is too, opting to sit down and dialogue as fellow-travellers, avoiding any hint of being patronising.
v) It requires truly listening to another perspective. Then too it needs to avoid confrontation – an inordinately apologetic style – by realising the possibility of learning from others. Real dialogue flourishes when both sides are actively engaged in a two-way exchange, have something definite to contribute, and are willing to really listen to one another. If we’re honest in terms of the history of the Church, this probably does not come naturally to an institution that prides itself on having the truth ‘subsisting’ in it [LG]!
vi) Trying to discern ”Events, needs and longings … these are starting points for dialogue.” this means discerning the ‘genuine signs of the presence and purpose of God.’
vii) He does see the failings of Gaudium et Spes but his purpose is to “wonder when and how the church will expand its desire for dialogue beyond people of ‘good will’ to include those who might not exactly be favourable towards the church.
viii) The strengths of the doc which: tries ‘to break the mould’. Learning from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin [so as to] be able to see ‘the world is not something apart from the Church, nor the Church from the world. The two interpenetrate all the time. It accepts that family, social and political problems are part of life and as such part of the realities faced by the people of God. This gives flesh to the insight expressed in the first paragraph of the document that ‘nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in our hearts.’ (GS1)