Mail



The Sauvé Commission (following)

(…) Today, faced with the major crisis that the Church is going through, whether it be the recent revelations of the Sauvé report or quite simply the constant decrease in religious practice for years, the Church must not does it not question itself in depth about its capacity to innovate in order to overcome this crisis, to regain momentum, vigor and faith? As a practicing Catholic, director of a company whose core activity is centered on the management of innovation, you can imagine that this question torments me! What parallels can be drawn between innovation practices in companies and the ground that the Church offers for this action? Let us come back to the reasons for innovation. Innovation arises from a problem, identified by a person or a group of people who have the audacity to think that they can find a solution to this situation that no solution to date has been able to solve. . (…) Who are those who feel the “problem” and who have the audacity to think that it is imperative to evolve in order to restore energy to such a precious organism which is spreading a message that is more essential than ever, centered on the Love ? At the risk of shocking, I do not believe that these people are so numerous within the Church. I have the audacity to think that they are, like those who never took an airplane, on the margins of the current faithful of the Church. They are those who do not or no longer go to mass, who do not practice and even who do not believe, but who, however, ask existential questions about the meaning of life and death. They are more and more numerous today to seek these answers (cf. “In debate” La Croix L’Hebdo of October 23, page 35). Failing to find an answer within a Christian community which is less and less visible, they turn to the practices of meditation, mindfulness and other so-called “alternative” practices. These practices respond to this quest for “spirituality” but, for all that, in my Christian eyes, in the absence of Christ, they cannot fully quench their thirst. (…) The rest will belong to those who want to have the audacity to solve the problem that I would express as follows: “ How can we make people widely discover the inestimable gift that the Church offers us by making it possible to meet Christ?

Severine Herlin

—-

I react to the Sauvé report and to the platform of Marine de Préneuf and Marie Grand of October 18, of which a comment concerning the bishop particularly struck me: “Cut off from any real contradiction and surrounded by a few blind courtiers, how could he hear and discern? ” Without wanting to generalize, I think that the same problem can be repeated in each parish, where we see the priests, however full of good will, deciding everything, on their own. And also to find oneself well isolated to add to the conduct of souls, the responsibility of the administration and the animation of the parish. The authors of the tribune speak of monarchical power. I would rather speak of a feudal system, which was normal and customary two thousand years ago, but which is unacceptable today. (…)

Jerome

—-

This process of listening and dialogue launched by the Pope and opened on October 17 in my diocese suggests several comments to me. The first is methodological: to summarize the variety of opinions of the members of a group (between extreme conservatism and extreme progressivism) as well as to summarize at best the marks of a student between 0 and 20 in various materials, the least bad first-order parameter is the mean. Now at the parish level we are asked to work in teams (of movements, services, young people, chaplaincies …) which is of course laudable but can only give a soft consensus, lukewarm water, first at the level of each group then, in the same way, for the aggregation of these groups at the level of the parish, then of each bishopric, of the CEF and finally at the level of the Vatican. To my knowledge, the precise methodology to be applied is absolutely not published. If, at each level of aggregation, we stick to “averaging” opinions, it is highly probable, mathematically, that the conclusion at the Vatican level will be “all is well, your Eminence! Is this really where the Holy Spirit wants to lead the Church? (…)

JP

—-

What does it mean, asks a reader, “To move from a pastoral of supervision to a pastoral of accompaniment and fraternity? “ (letter published on October 29). For a long time, the priests governed their parishes like the masters of a domain, very often without consulting or taking into account the opinions of their parishioners. Today, this is no longer acceptable for three reasons: the educational level and aspirations of Catholics have changed, and some have a particular knowledge of the milieu which allows them to propose useful initiatives. (Evangelii Gaudium) ; the fall in the number of indigenous diocesan priests (divided by ten since my youth); the observation that everyone participates all the better in the proposed actions as they participate in their decisions. Priests will now owe more to accompany that lead. (…)

Didier Melliere

To be continued

.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *