As most members of the archdiocese know from their parish priests/administrators and from reports in the Catholic News, for the last five months the archdiocese has engaged in substantive consultations for the purpose of strategic planning for the present and future needs of the archdiocese. An additional series of consultations is planned prior to the opening of the 2008 Synod process.

During the consultations, the participants were given professionally prepared information on the archdiocese through the Geographical Information System. As the participants processed the data, they became aware that the issue of planning was “serious business”.

Some participants became very nervous as they began to understand the implications of the data that they had been given. There was a strong consensus that the archdiocese has to begin thinking strategically on every level of archdiocesan life: the parish and its chapel communities, the vicariates and the archdiocesan level.

A zealous decision

At the end of the second round of consultations, the parish priests/administrators of the archdiocese made a courageous and, in my opinion, an encouraging decision about providing Eucharist (Mass) to the worshipping communities of the archdiocese over the next seven to ten years.

They agreed:
1) that every worshipping community in the archdiocese should have Mass at least twice a month; and
2) that no worshipping community in the archdiocese should ever feel it has been forgotten.

Laypersons from parishes without a priest tell me that they honestly believe there are “haves and have-not parishes” in the archdiocese. 

The implication of this zealous decision is that priests will have to move from their parishes probably about four to five times each year and that, ordinarily, on those four to five weekends their parishes will have Eucharistic services.

One of the results of this adjustment will be that every parish community will actually experience the disappointment of not being able to have Mass each weekend.

Although the schedule will not begin formally until after Easter, it has already begun informally. The Regional Episcopal Vicars with the help of many priests have reached out to help worshipping communities who do not have a priest.

In the proposed implementation plan, one suggestion is that older priests could drive to the not too distant parishes of younger priests to free the younger priests to serve the needs of more distant communities.

For example, last weekend, I travelled to Arouca on Saturday and Tacarigua on Sunday to celebrate with the people and the younger priest I assisted was able to travel to a more distant parish, Toco, to celebrate Mass with the people.

Implementation of the decision over the next seven to ten years will be challenging and probably tiring for priests, at least those who are my age and older.

However, it will help bring the archdiocese together, witness to the zeal of the priests in the archdiocese and will help everyone experience in a very practical way the painful effects of the shortage of priestly vocations.

Hopefully, it will also encourage people to pray for and work for an increase of vocations to the priesthood not just from the families of others but also from their own families.

Foundations of the decision

I want to spend some time on the theological underpinnings of the zealous decision of the presbyterate. During the consultations, it was stated with some frequency that the archdiocese must develop a “culture of dialogue and solidarity” to make adjustments for the present and to build the future. It was also accepted that building a new pastoral culture requires a significant shift in the minds and hearts of the people. Therefore, it will take time.

Without ever naming the dialogue/solidarity process explicitly, that is precisely what we have been doing since the year of preparation (2002) for the first synod session in 2003. We have been committed to dialogue.

Now, in addition to continuing the dialogue, we are moving on to solidarity. Everyone has been invited to participate in the process. The truth is that as an Archdiocese, we are ‘getting good at’ being a Church of dialogue. I fully expect the same results regarding solidarity. 

In light of what has happened in the archdiocese since 2002 as the result of dialogue and in light of the agenda we must still process together, I want to offer some ideas on dialogue from Pope Paul VI. 

Dialogue

The 1964 Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, was his first Encyclical. It is now considered a classic for understanding the importance of dialogue in the Church and of the Church with the world.

It was written during the Second Vatican Council and intended to guide the dialogue that, based on unchanging Catholic doctrine, would be a permanent part of post-conciliar life in the Church.

Pope Paul VI viewed dialogue as the way to know each other better and to love each other more profoundly. He offered three principles to face what he called “the enormous responsibilities of the Church”: 
1) The principle of self-awareness – the Church must look with penetrating eyes at itself and ponder the mystery of its own being;
2) The principle of renewal – the Church must be dedicated to the pursuit of that perfection to which Christ called it; and
3) The principle of dialogue – the Church must examine its attitude to internal dialogue or conversation that is rooted in its own self-understanding and external dialogue which is an essential component of its mission to the world. 

The motives for dialogue

The Holy Father specified some motives for initiating dialogue:
1) Dialogue should be motivated by respect and by a love which is ardent and sincere;
2) The commitment to dialogue should be unlimited and neither self-seeking nor coercive;
3) The opportunity for dialogue should be available to all;
4) The process of dialogue must be gradual and persevering.

Characteristics of dialogue

The Holy Father also identified some characteristics of dialogue:
1) Dialogue must be accepted as a method of the apostolate and as a means of making spiritual contact with the Catholic people and with people of the world;
2) The language of dialogue must be clear and able to grasped by ordinary people;
3) The tone for dialogue should be meekness not arrogance;
4) Dialogue must be marked by confidence in one’s own position on an issue but also by confidence in the good will of the parties engaged in the dialogue; 
5) Those in dialogue must always be aware of the sensitivities of the other parties to the dialogue.

As we move on with the dialogue process in the archdiocese, it is important that we reflect spiritually on the teaching of Pope Paul VI. We are not a secular corporation.

We are the Catholic Church. Do we share Pope Paul VI’s conviction about the importance of dialogue in the life of the Church? As we continue the dialogue process can we say that the values of Pope Paul VI regarding dialogue are our values?

Conclusion

The final section of this column will consider the theological underpinning of the second element of planning in the archdiocese: solidarity.