• Keep parishioners updated through documentation and IT links with regard to information from the Archdiocese and actions of

• Obtain feedback from parishioners (through IT and a parish meeting) which can be taken to the “Region” (Eastern) meeting which          will be conducted by the Archdiocese – date to be fixed (most likely in 6 – 8 weeks).

This document is the first in this on-going communication strategy.   More detailed commentary and opinions from the PPC will be discussed at the parish meeting, however, it is certainly the view and aim of the PPC that outcomes from any changes imposed (if and when) are part of the way forward for our parish, will protect our identity, support and build on what we have at OLOP, and ensures the morale and community engagement we value continues and builds.

The pastoral and individual parish governance changes required in the implementation of the MP need to be understood by parishioners, so that you may make informed judgements and comments.   This is important in two aspects – feedback via the PPC to take to the Archdiocese, and community & self-preparation for changes that may occur.

History & Feedback

The Way of the Gospel

The Cluster of Parishes into Missions 

In preparation for the further discussions on the Archdiocese ‘Mission’ Plan, there are a number of elements for us to consider:

The suggestion is that 2 priests would support 4 or 5 parishes and that each priest would say Mass across all parishes.  Thus, subject to Mass times on a Sunday, we may only see Fr Jerald once a month.  But if 1 priest concentrated on (say) 2 parishes and the other priest concentrated on the other 3 parishes, at least there would be a closer/more regular connection to each parish community.

On (say) one Sunday a month when we might otherwise have a retired priest saying Mass, we could livestream Fr Jerald saying Mass from (say) Doncaster.  Holy Communion could be distributed by the Eucharistic Ministers utilising the blessed hosts consecrated at Mass the previous day.  All of our community would still be together.

1)  Does the Passionists Monastery have any role to play in our ‘Mission’?

2)  Maintaining the wellbeing of the priests

What more can we do to support Fr Jerald?

What duties take up a large part of Fr Jerald’s time that could be undertaken by lay people?

The suggestion is that 2 priests would live together to provide companionship and support to each other.  However, priests may have different interests, eat different kinds of food, and eat at different times; and even follow different footy teams!

(Editor’s comment:  Would it not be more beneficial to the parishes and the clergy to have a priest living close to one or two communities/parishes instead of all priests residing at one location (distant to certain parish communities).  By a more planned spread of clergy amongst 6 to 8 parishes, the priest can reach out to people in need and parishioners would feel they have their priest accessible and more part of the local communities.)

Which other parishes would make the best fit with Our Lady of the Pines – Doncaster East, Bulleen, Doncaster and Templestowe; or Park Orchards and Ringwood North?

3)  How do we turn this challenge into an opportunity for faith renewal?

Pre COVID-19, only 10% of Catholics in Australia attended Mass on a regular basis.

Archdiocese of Melbourne: Proposed Restructure of Parishes and Reassignment of Priests – Need for Some Deferral

There is concern among Melbourne Catholics at the recent announcement by the Archdiocese of Melbourne of a plan for restructuring of parish pastoral leadership. This paper is an attempt to express the main concerns identified by a number of Catholic laity and priests.

The plan for the restructure of parishes in groups needs consideration in the broader context of the structure of and issues facing the full diocese, with the benefit of the sense of faith of the faithful. There has been limited input from the people and priests of the Archdiocese, from the many valued Catholic workers in the Archdiocese, or from the leaders of religious congregations providing a number of parish priests and many services in the Archdiocese. The current consultation focusses on parish implementation aspects. The Plenary Council of all Australian dioceses is imminent and is expected to address issues of concern to all the people of the Church, including the Church’s leadership, governance, and institutional organisation with likely impact on parish administration.

We are all sadly aware that our Church is at a crisis point, no longer adequately inspiring our communities. Our Church has alienated too many people who attended Catholic schools and lived a sacramental life. It has become irrelevant to the lives of too many of our children. It is not yet a Vatican II institution, a truly collegial Church in which decisions respect local cultures, communities and circumstances. Rather, it is often focussed on legalism and control, with inadequate listening and dialogue, and often more focussed on its institutional image.

The development of an archdiocesan plan for parish structures needs to respond to Catholic teaching about the role and rights of all the baptised, and to be informed by a synodal approach involving the people affected at every stage. The need for synodality in Church decision-making has been constantly stressed by Pope Francis.

The challenges facing both the diocese and the Church, including diocesan structures, are very pertinent to any parish restructuring. Melbourne Archdiocese is generally considered to be too large, twice the size of the Archdiocese of Sydney which was divided in 1986 into Sydney, Broken Bay, and Parramatta. A parish restructuring plan needs to consider the adequacy of current diocesan leadership in facing the current challenges of our Church, and the need for changes in leadership arrangements, practices and culture, particularly the problem of clericalism.

Canon law requires that where parishes are grouped together, one priest is to be appointed as the ‘moderator’ to “direct the joint action and to be responsible for it to the Bishop” (c.517). The plan seems to envisage that current parish priests will be preferably co-located in a group presbytery as assistant priests to the one appointed as moderator for their group of parishes, an arrangement with consequences for the priests and parishioners of the parishes involved. Many are unprepared for more collaborative and synodal models of pastoral leadership.

Our Melbourne Archdiocese already lacks a Diocesan Pastoral Council (Canon 511) and diocesan synods/assemblies (c. 460), both being of particular importance in preparation for a Plenary Council. This Melbourne restructuring of parishes could pre-empt the Plenary Council on matters affecting the people of the Church.

There is no doubt that structural and governance changes are needed in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. However, major strategic decisions must respond to the signs of the times and our Church’s challenges. That requires openness to the issues of concern to the people of the Church whose Christian lives are impacted, and not accepting a diminished Church.

The present Melbourne Archdiocesan Plan needs careful consideration with transparency, consultation, and strategic context. We must face up to the challenges of leadership and governance and identify new ways of living the Gospel with new roles for our communities in keeping with Jesus’ mandate. The Plenary Council will consider such issues.

In short, the parish restructure plan of Melbourne focusses on our needs in light of diminished numbers of priests and parishioners, but should be seen in a broader context of parishioners ageing and also leaving the Church. Our Church is dying. Archdiocesan leadership needs the benefit of the Plenary Council to ensure that all the people of the Church, laity and hierarchy, are able to fulfil their responsibilities for an accountable, transparent and inclusive Church.  The major prior focus is the Plenary Council which will address the grave threats to the Church’s mission.

This is a time for people of the Church of Melbourne to meet their baptismal responsibilities in a spirit of hope and collegiality. 

Action

It is proposed that parishes consider the following resolution:

The Archbishop be requested to defer the parish restructure proposal, excepting immediate needs, until:

• How will the planned parish restructuring be affected by the Plenary Council which the Instrumentum Laboris – ‘Continuing the 

• Should not the plan be put on hold pending the outcome of the Plenary Council which assembles very shortly, at least to assess

• Read and digest the information above and the links (if you do not have access to the links, please contact the Parish Office and a          hard copy will be printed out for you).
• Ponder and discuss the MP –  your opinion re the MP, is this the right time (prior to the Plenary Council), the positives/negatives,           questions/suggestions.
• Attend the parish meeting (which will be scheduled as soon as COVID19 restrictions allow, or via Zoom if insufficient time               before the Eastern Region meeting) to discuss and raise the matters listed in the dot point above. ***It will be the information,       concerns, comments and suggestions from this meeting that will be taken by your representatives to the Archdiocese               meeting in July).
• If you are not able to attend the parish meeting, send any concerns, comments, and suggestions through to the Parish Office for            inclusion.  Telephone 9841 8354 or email donvale@cam.org.au

• Keep parishioners updated through documentation and IT links with regard to information from the Archdiocese and actions of

• Obtain feedback from parishioners (through IT and a parish meeting) which can be taken to the “Region” (Eastern) meeting which          will be conducted by the Archdiocese – date to be fixed (most likely in 6 – 8 weeks).

This document is the first in this on-going communication strategy.   More detailed commentary and opinions from the PPC will be discussed at the parish meeting, however, it is certainly the view and aim of the PPC that outcomes from any changes imposed (if and when) are part of the way forward for our parish, will protect our identity, support and build on what we have at OLOP, and ensures the morale and community engagement we value continues and builds.

The pastoral and individual parish governance changes required in the implementation of the MP need to be understood by parishioners, so that you may make informed judgements and comments.   This is important in two aspects – feedback via the PPC to take to the Archdiocese, and community & self-preparation for changes that may occur.

History & Feedback

The Way of the Gospel

The Cluster of Parishes into Missions 

In preparation for the further discussions on the Archdiocese ‘Mission’ Plan, there are a number of elements for us to consider:

The suggestion is that 2 priests would support 4 or 5 parishes and that each priest would say Mass across all parishes.  Thus, subject to Mass times on a Sunday, we may only see Fr Jerald once a month.  But if 1 priest concentrated on (say) 2 parishes and the other priest concentrated on the other 3 parishes, at least there would be a closer/more regular connection to each parish community.

On (say) one Sunday a month when we might otherwise have a retired priest saying Mass, we could livestream Fr Jerald saying Mass from (say) Doncaster.  Holy Communion could be distributed by the Eucharistic Ministers utilising the blessed hosts consecrated at Mass the previous day.  All of our community would still be together.

1)  Does the Passionists Monastery have any role to play in our ‘Mission’?

2)  Maintaining the wellbeing of the priests

What more can we do to support Fr Jerald?

What duties take up a large part of Fr Jerald’s time that could be undertaken by lay people?

The suggestion is that 2 priests would live together to provide companionship and support to each other.  However, priests may have different interests, eat different kinds of food, and eat at different times; and even follow different footy teams!

(Editor’s comment:  Would it not be more beneficial to the parishes and the clergy to have a priest living close to one or two communities/parishes instead of all priests residing at one location (distant to certain parish communities).  By a more planned spread of clergy amongst 6 to 8 parishes, the priest can reach out to people in need and parishioners would feel they have their priest accessible and more part of the local communities.)

Which other parishes would make the best fit with Our Lady of the Pines – Doncaster East, Bulleen, Doncaster and Templestowe; or Park Orchards and Ringwood North?

3)  How do we turn this challenge into an opportunity for faith renewal?

Pre COVID-19, only 10% of Catholics in Australia attended Mass on a regular basis.

Archdiocese of Melbourne: Proposed Restructure of Parishes and Reassignment of Priests – Need for Some Deferral

There is concern among Melbourne Catholics at the recent announcement by the Archdiocese of Melbourne of a plan for restructuring of parish pastoral leadership. This paper is an attempt to express the main concerns identified by a number of Catholic laity and priests.

The plan for the restructure of parishes in groups needs consideration in the broader context of the structure of and issues facing the full diocese, with the benefit of the sense of faith of the faithful. There has been limited input from the people and priests of the Archdiocese, from the many valued Catholic workers in the Archdiocese, or from the leaders of religious congregations providing a number of parish priests and many services in the Archdiocese. The current consultation focusses on parish implementation aspects. The Plenary Council of all Australian dioceses is imminent and is expected to address issues of concern to all the people of the Church, including the Church’s leadership, governance, and institutional organisation with likely impact on parish administration.

We are all sadly aware that our Church is at a crisis point, no longer adequately inspiring our communities. Our Church has alienated too many people who attended Catholic schools and lived a sacramental life. It has become irrelevant to the lives of too many of our children. It is not yet a Vatican II institution, a truly collegial Church in which decisions respect local cultures, communities and circumstances. Rather, it is often focussed on legalism and control, with inadequate listening and dialogue, and often more focussed on its institutional image.

The development of an archdiocesan plan for parish structures needs to respond to Catholic teaching about the role and rights of all the baptised, and to be informed by a synodal approach involving the people affected at every stage. The need for synodality in Church decision-making has been constantly stressed by Pope Francis.

The challenges facing both the diocese and the Church, including diocesan structures, are very pertinent to any parish restructuring. Melbourne Archdiocese is generally considered to be too large, twice the size of the Archdiocese of Sydney which was divided in 1986 into Sydney, Broken Bay, and Parramatta. A parish restructuring plan needs to consider the adequacy of current diocesan leadership in facing the current challenges of our Church, and the need for changes in leadership arrangements, practices and culture, particularly the problem of clericalism.

Canon law requires that where parishes are grouped together, one priest is to be appointed as the ‘moderator’ to “direct the joint action and to be responsible for it to the Bishop” (c.517). The plan seems to envisage that current parish priests will be preferably co-located in a group presbytery as assistant priests to the one appointed as moderator for their group of parishes, an arrangement with consequences for the priests and parishioners of the parishes involved. Many are unprepared for more collaborative and synodal models of pastoral leadership.

Our Melbourne Archdiocese already lacks a Diocesan Pastoral Council (Canon 511) and diocesan synods/assemblies (c. 460), both being of particular importance in preparation for a Plenary Council. This Melbourne restructuring of parishes could pre-empt the Plenary Council on matters affecting the people of the Church.

There is no doubt that structural and governance changes are needed in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. However, major strategic decisions must respond to the signs of the times and our Church’s challenges. That requires openness to the issues of concern to the people of the Church whose Christian lives are impacted, and not accepting a diminished Church.

The present Melbourne Archdiocesan Plan needs careful consideration with transparency, consultation, and strategic context. We must face up to the challenges of leadership and governance and identify new ways of living the Gospel with new roles for our communities in keeping with Jesus’ mandate. The Plenary Council will consider such issues.

In short, the parish restructure plan of Melbourne focusses on our needs in light of diminished numbers of priests and parishioners, but should be seen in a broader context of parishioners ageing and also leaving the Church. Our Church is dying. Archdiocesan leadership needs the benefit of the Plenary Council to ensure that all the people of the Church, laity and hierarchy, are able to fulfil their responsibilities for an accountable, transparent and inclusive Church.  The major prior focus is the Plenary Council which will address the grave threats to the Church’s mission.

This is a time for people of the Church of Melbourne to meet their baptismal responsibilities in a spirit of hope and collegiality. 

Action

It is proposed that parishes consider the following resolution:

The Archbishop be requested to defer the parish restructure proposal, excepting immediate needs, until:

• How will the planned parish restructuring be affected by the Plenary Council which the Instrumentum Laboris – ‘Continuing the 

• Should not the plan be put on hold pending the outcome of the Plenary Council which assembles very shortly, at least to assess

• Read and digest the information above and the links (if you do not have access to the links, please contact the Parish Office and a          hard copy will be printed out for you).
• Ponder and discuss the MP –  your opinion re the MP, is this the right time (prior to the Plenary Council), the positives/negatives,           questions/suggestions.
• Attend the parish meeting (which will be scheduled as soon as COVID19 restrictions allow, or via Zoom if insufficient time               before the Eastern Region meeting) to discuss and raise the matters listed in the dot point above. ***It will be the information,       concerns, comments and suggestions from this meeting that will be taken by your representatives to the Archdiocese               meeting in July).
• If you are not able to attend the parish meeting, send any concerns, comments, and suggestions through to the Parish Office for            inclusion.  Telephone 9841 8354 or email donvale@cam.org.au