The changing role of the parish priest
The creation of pastoral areas with teams of clergy looking after a number of parishes signalled a different relationship between priest and parish, as already noted. Within Roman Catholic Canon Law, the parish is defined in a way which makes the existence of a parish priest integral to its identity:
A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop.’’
Whilst this canon may not be widely known by the lay faithful, the longstanding culture of parish which it sustains is, nonetheless, a powerful formative reality for both lay people and clerics. In particular, the diocesan clergy would - explicitly or not - generally understand their working lives in terms of being a ‘parish priest’, with ‘his own’ parish community.
Perhaps this ecclesial understanding lies behind the research finding that the focus on stewardship felt to at least some priests like a focus on the laity at the expense of their distinctive roles. This sense that stewardship might undermine the parish priest’s role can be further illustrated by the experience that the stewardship process in two out of the five pilot parishes “ground to a halt” when there was a change in parish priest. It became clear to both insider and outsider teams “that the leadership of the priest is key to the entire enterprise”6 - a learning point which became an important one for the diocesan team as it developed ways of working with clergy and their particular questions and concerns. A Clergy Advisor on Stewardship was appointed to work specifically with the priests of the diocese, and his reflections on his experience became an important part of the project data. In particular, he found that some parish priests found it “difficult to be open with their people because of their own training and shaping. Until the priest feels comfortable with it, it cannot really flourish”.7 The stewardship process, with its sense of collaboration and lay participation in mission and ministry required communication and relationship skills
Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth 185 and gifts which many clergy may not have felt they needed to nurture and develop in their ministry to date.
At the meeting of ARCS researchers with the diocesan team at the end of Cycle One, the Clergy Advisor was able to report on his work, identifying a number of concerns and questions from the priests with whom he had worked:
Role of Clergy Advisor on stewardship
[Clergy]Advisor is specifically visiting pastoral areas (PAs) and speaking to the clergy in the parishes/PAs. Giving a brief outline of stewardship and trying to root it theologically and ecclesiologically. His input has been received generously. Some questions arise about the terminology - is “stewardship” a Catholic word? Is there some diocesan hidden agenda? Once this is out of the way there is an opportunity for deeper reflection; to affirm the personal ‘commitment’ of the clergy (how their faith journey has affected their lives). He has visited 15 PAs to date.
(out of 24)
Speculatively - [the Clergy Advisor] expects all Coordinating Pastors [one per Pastoral Area] to be au fait with Stewardship as it’s the vehicle that is to carry forward the pastoral plan. Expect the co-ordinating pastors to go to the international conference - 1 or 2 each time, so it ‘infects’ the diocese. Ultimately, stewardship should also be included in clergy formation, especially for newly ordained and new people in the diocese. Stewardship part of a communication vocabulary. This is part of lifting it up to the next level.
There is a need to clear the ground. Ecclesiological jargon and scripture based language which priests are familiar with, conversation shared from their own experience - that is key.
[•••I
There is concern over change in Mass times. Sense (amongst clergy) of waiting for someone to get on with it; a need to practically re-think i.e. mass times/Eucharistic communities. Need to get an understanding and communication (including with parishioners) that pragmatic considerations are part of Stewardship.
(Cycle 1, Notes of Feedback Meeting with
Diocesan Representatives)
This account witnesses to the real need for formation in stewardship for the clergy themselves, if the process and vision was to be fully embodied on the ground. We can note the language of ‘infection’ as suggestive of something that needs to be ‘caught’ and thoroughly permeate communities, and, in this metaphor, the clergy are seen as significant ‘carriers’ of ideas and language. It is also clear that a level of ‘personal conversion’ to stewardship wasneeded for clergy to be effective in the diocesan plan. This, in turn, was making demands on the reflective capacities of priests, not all of whom would have received a formation which leant itself to such processes. For all this, there was also evidence of some priests in the pilot parishes finding the stewardship concept liberating. One of those interviewed responded with a sense of personal growth through stewardship:
There is a need to engender a joyfulness or celebration about a priest’s role. It’s [the stewardship process] giving priests the opportunity to celebrate who they are/rediscover their gifts/talents; a way of coping with an extremely stressful job, living life like a stretched elastic band.
(Parish Priest Interview)
Still, it was striking that the difficulties of sustaining stewardship in parishes after a change of clergy personnel, together with the rather ad intra anxieties around Mass times and their implications, spoke of both a lack of felt agency among clergy, and a real structural power located in the ordained leaders as crucial loci for the enabling or not of stewardship. Anxieties, both theological and practical, continued to impede notions of shared or ‘collaborative’ mission and ministry as this conversation excerpt from the feedback meeting shows:
DIOCESAN 1: Stewardship is not the “least-worst option”. I’m much more positive than this. It is a good time in the church when the laity can become fully empowered. I don’t see the need for a clerically led church; lay people can share collaboratively with the priest in the leadership of the Church. Difficult as notions of collaborative ministry are embryonic.
CLERGY ADVISOR: Collaborative ministry an important issue with priests. Collaborative ministry is not a shift of power; there is also a lack of training, the laity needs to be trained and resourced. Some collaborative ministry has pushed the priest out. Need to provide formation for both clergy and laity in this regard.
