Synopsis of the Intervention of

The Second Vatican Council brought great blessings and substantial gains; for example, continuing missionary expansion and the new movements and communities. But it was also followed by confusion, some decline, especially in the West, and pockets of collapse. Good intentions are not enough.

Two areas of decline in Oceania are the number of priestly vocations in Australia and New Zealand (but not everywhere in Oceania) and the confusion evident in the proliferation of Communion services.

My recommendations to the Synod on how to deal with these "shadows" presuppose the maintenance in the Latin Church of the ancient tradition and life-giving discipline of mandatory celibacy for the diocesan clergy as well as the religious orders. To loosen this tradition now would be a serious error, which would provoke confusion in the mission areas and would not strengthen spiritual vitality in the First World. It would be a departure from the practice of the Lord Himself, bring significant practical disadvantages to the work of the Church, e.g. financial, and weaken the sign value of the priesthood. It would weaken, too, the witness to loving sacrifice, and to the reality of the Last Things, and the rewards of Heaven.

We should remember the situation of the Church 500 years ago just before the Reformation, a small weak community separated from the East. The enormous expansion since then and the purification of Church leadership (imperfect but substantial) were achieved primarily under grace, through the lives of celibate sisters, brothers and priests. The recent sexual scandals have not invalidated these gains.

I request the Synod to draw up a further list of suggestions and criteria to regulate the celebration of Communion services, especially on Sundays.

"Liturgies awaiting a priest" is a better title than "priest-less liturgies." There is no such thing as "lay-led liturgy," because lay people can only lead devotional prayers and para-liturgies. The suggestion of Archbishop Paolo of Haiti that we use the title "special ministers of Holy Communion" is much better than "ministers of the Eucharist."

I support the suggestion that a list of topics for thematic homilies be drawn up for the liturgical year. One such topic should be the nature of the Eucharist and the essential role of the ministerial priest.

Communion services or liturgies of the Word should not be substituted for Mass when priests are available. Such unnecessary substitutions are often not motivated by a hunger for the Bread of Life, but by ignorance and confusion or even by hostility to the ministerial priesthood and the sacraments.

To what extent are regular celebrations of Communion services, Sunday after Sunday, a genuine development or distortion, a Protestantization, which risks confusing even regular Church-goers?

webmaster www.evangelizationstation.com