A Confusion of Tongues

A Confusion of Tongues

Raise your hand if you have a good understanding of what, exactly, the Uniting in Heart 2030 Pastoral Plan aims to do.  Put it into words.  Say what will go on in your parish once the plan is implemented. Anybody? 

It’s been difficult to follow. 

In the first place, this is because the explanations of it have been scattered sporadically across a 6 year period.

Complicating this, the plan itself has undergone evolution over time.

But it’s also hard to follow because our leaders have chosen a PR approach where they say a whole lot but don’t actually tell us much.   The Catholic Moment has served as the primary vehicle for this.

We’ve seen the colorful spread and the 3 Pillars and Vision statement. There’s been a lot of talk of unity and  mission &  leadership.  It doesn’t say a great deal, in the end, beyond generalities, and so seems quite innocuous.

But unless you were among the very small minority of the Faithful able to attend listening sessions or official meetings of the deaneries, unless you’ve been actively collecting information as we have, you don’t see very specific answers.

You might have been among the few who would have taken the time to dig through the diocesan website to find more detailed information. But if you try the diocesan website’s FAQ section on Uniting in Heart, where the plan is supposed to be laid out with more specificity, you’ll find the linked documents have all been pulled down. Other links–for example the ones for the information given at the United in Heart deanery meetings–now lead only to “Page Not Found” messages. So now even information previously shared has disappeared. Interesting.    Some careful PR work and information scrubbing?

So you could be forgiven for feeling that there was something going on under the surface that you didn’t understand.

And now sudden, drastic changes have begun, sending our diocese into a state of upheaval, with 80% of the clergy reassigned and what feels like last-minute shake-ups every week, a slew of unexpected retirements, and constant talk of “a new reality.”  

Are you happy about this? Do you trust decisions that have been made on your behalf?

Again, in the plethora of articles published in The Catholic Moment, concrete answers about what our parishes will look like when the dust settles are conspicuous by their absence.

Instead, our leaders have served up quite a menu of euphemisms and buzzwords.   We’ve been promised  we can create a “New Pentecost” for our diocese within the next 10 years that will require us to “step outside our comfort zones,” if we just do the Plan, and have been told we are entering “a new way of being,” a involving a “radical shift in culture and practice in the Church.”

But what does that mean, really?

A handful of individuals appear to be committed to changing the paradigm for all of us in a major way.

If the idea of radical shifts in Church culture bugs you, and you happen to love your Catholic Faith for what it is, or if you like being rooted in the things that give your spiritual life and your parish its character,  then you might be worried.

That’s too bad for you, our diocese seems to be saying.

Our diocesan leaders have told us we should embrace the change. That we should not be judgmental of the plan. They have even suggested that if we have concerns about the plan, it’s because we’re scared of the call to holiness, and not very good at listening to the Holy Spirit:

“If we are anxious about where the Uniting In Heart 2030 Pastoral Plan will take us, our first response should be to ask of ourselves where does our anxiety come from?  Let’s look at where it comes from and not deny what truly stands in our way. Has the call to holiness and discipleship awakened a fear in our hearts?  Is a source of our anxiety the realization that our post-Christian culture has succeeded in tamping down the fire of the Holy Spirit in our lives?”  


Deacon Mike Mescall, The Catholic Moment, September 22, 2019

So there’s that.

We are fairly certain that you can be open to God and striving hard for holiness while still being concerned that your leaders, who are human beings, can make missteps and errors. That type of thinking has been discouraged, as we’ll explore in future posts.

Yet the prevailing messaging, like the above, ranges from upbeat reassurance, to guilt-tripping the worried soul, to what can only be described as lyrical effusion for the wonderful, wonderful plan. We’ve been told that Uniting in Heart will be like a fine, shining gem, with a radiance that will cover the entire diocese. The plan has been subtitled with Our Lord’s words from the Book of Revelation (“Behold, I make all things new”), the words He uses to describe the parousia, His Second Coming, the remaking all of creation: new heaven and a new earth.

Some of us think associating a diocesan reorganization plan with the parousia might be a little extra.

This is all like some form of New Speak, where direct, simple answers have no place, and where you are meant to just sit tight and enjoy your large bowl of word salad:  Vitality.  Vibrancy. Embracing new capabilities. Change management capacity.  Transitioning.  Fabric of Faith.  New reality. New states of being.

“It’s difficult to say in a short slogan what Uniting in Heart has been moving us toward,” the bishop tells us.

Indeed. So it seems.

We’ve been promised a “New Pentecost,” so why does it feel like we’re getting an old tower of Babel?

We at Red Wolf have dug past the PR campaign. And we are going to be more direct than our friends over at The Catholic Moment. We think the Faithful deserve that much.

If that will help you, stick around. Comment below. It’s vital that you talk to one another. Share articles. Speak out.

Our next post, “The Code of Silence,” is coming soon.


42 Replies to “A Confusion of Tongues”

  1. We’ve had over a year now of lame, church-speak buzzwords and I still don’t know what Uniting in Heart is beyond fundraising, consolidating parishes, and moving priests around. Maybe that’s all it really is and the leadership figures if they just throw a constant barrage of fun-sounding adjectives and adverbs at you, you’ll be less likely to identify the truth of all this, because the truth is pretty cold and business-like.

    3
    1. Now those are three pillars I can clearly understand:

      1. Fundraising
      2. Consolidate Parishes
      3. Move Priests Around

      No ambiguity there!

      3
      1. Do we also need to add Encounter School Ministry as well? Looks very Protestanty and has the bishops “seal of approval”.

        1. That’s quite a rogues’ gallery of weak and/or dissident bishops offering their approval over at “Encounter School Ministry”, including our very own. It’s funny. The modernism-engulfed church is making it much easier now for faithful Catholics to sort out where not to go for authentic Catholicism based on which bishops are in support. These faithless shepherds really are doing the faithful a service. Keep up those endorsements, guys!

          – Matthew 18:6

          1
  2. I’d like to know to whom on the planning committee the Holy Spirit spoke. The people of this Diocese pray deeply and I haven’t found a single person who thinks this plan is the will of God. Why does our Bishop expect us to believe that this plan is inspired by God? The lack of honest communication and transparency that continues to come from the Diocesan offices is astounding. God is truth.

    3
  3. Word salad?!? Foul! The diocese paid TeamWorks good money for those pillars and the accompanying prose (and will still be paying for some time to come, I understand)…

    1
  4. It always struck me as VERY disingenuous every time Deacon Mike Mescall or the Bishop used phrases like “listening session,” or “ongoing conversation” in their articles. Conversation, my eye! Dialogue, foresooth! And the “listening session” was at 2:00 in the afternoon on a weekday in Lafayette! Obviously scheduled during a time when people could not take off work and drive there. And that was obviously the point. Do they think we’re stupid sheep, who are incapable of seeing this? Do they think that by referring (in nauseatingly sicofantic terms) to the United in Heart plan as a “multi-faceted sparkling gem” that we’ll just go with it? More like “multi-faceted pile of dog poo!” I can’t wait for the next fruitful harvest campaign. They’re getting zero from me, and hopefully the same from every faithful catholic in the diocese!

    4
      1. We’re still obliged to support the church. So I’ll be mailing my check during the next Fruitful Harvest to Bishop Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas. I will send a copy of the check to Bishop Doherty and let him know when starts acting like a shepherd and a father instead of a CEO, and starts worrying more about souls and less about bad press or potential liability, then I will support the diocese financially. I’m aware that he’ll just extort the parishes that don’t make their quota, so I’ll find a way to support my local parish in ways that he can’t get to. I’ll earmark my donations to specific things and make clear in the gift that no portion of it is to be given to the bishop or the diocese or any entity associated with them, but it is to be used for a specific purpose for the local church. It’s time to hit these cowardly shepherds in one place that has been proven to motivate them… the pocketbook.
        Everyone should do this, and LET OTHER FAITHFUL CATHOLICS KNOW YOU ARE DOING IT. Enough talk. Do something!

        6
    1. When the terrible sexual scandals in the Church began to come out (Grand Jury investigation, McCarrick, etc.), some of us were dismayed to learn the Code of Canon Law sections regarding the bishop’s right to levy a tax on “public juridical persons subject to his authority” (c. 1263). Meaning, that even if we stop donating to diocesan campaigns, bishops can still take (and do) what they want from the parish funds.
      Canon 1260 also says: “The Church has the inherent right to require from the faithful whatever is necessary for its proper objectives.” And Can. 222 §1. says: “The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.”

      Seems like there could be some clever way, in an emergency such as ours, to create some temporary way to cover the needs of our parish without leaving a lot of extra money for a diocese to dip into. You can’t tax a parish with an empty bank account — a parish which is otherwise thriving because its parishioners actively cover all the roof repair and utility bills and really important things, not the thousands paid to force-feed us the Catholic Moment in full technicolor or to secular consulting groups. It would be interesting to find a way . . .

      Of course, some of us were giving to Frutiful Harvest, over and above what we contribute to Fruitful Harvest through our parishes. That could certainly stop.

      1
      1. Here is a possibility. Code of Canon Law 1267 Item 3. “Offerings given by the faithful for a specified purpose may be used only for that purpose.” As mentioned in the original comment, donations could be earmarked for specific needs; if the boiler needs repair, the parish faithful could donate monies specified for that; if the gas bill needs to be paid, the same could be done. Would this be easy? Of course not. Would it be incredibly complicated? Of course it would. We do not need to map out all the details of such a future at the present moment, however. St. John Henry Newman did not know all the ways his life would change when he left the Anglican Communion and all his family and friends to join our beloved Catholic Church, but he had the courage to “put out into the deep.” Perhaps he remembered this prayer that he had written years earlier:
        Lead, kindly light, amid the encircling gloom,
        lead thou me on;
        the night is dark, and I am far from home;
        lead thou me on.
        Keep thou my feet; I do not ask to see
        the distant scene; one step enough for me.

        3
  5. For anyone who might hesitate to post anonymously for fear of being labeled a coward, remember that the early American Patriots (Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, et. al.) and even more importantly, St. John Henry Newman, used anonymous tracts to promote their cause. There is a difference between cowardice and Prudence.

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Amendment protects the right to speak
    anonymously. 4 3 In Talley v. California, the Court examined the constitutionality of a Los
    Angeles city ordinance that prohibited the distribution of any handbills under any
    circumstances without giving the true name of the person who wrote or produced the
    bill. 44 In holding that the ordinance unconstitutionally abridged freedom of speech, the
    Court noted that anonymity has been used throughout history “for the most constructive
    purposes” 45 and that anonymous pamphlets “have played an important role in the
    progress of mankind.”46 Anonymous speech is a constitutionally protected activity
    because, as the Court recognized, identification of an author and his subsequent “fear of
    reprisal” can “deter … peaceful discussions” and thereby restrict freedom of speech.4 7
    In 1995, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission presented the Supreme Court
    with the issue of whether an Ohio law abridged freedom of speech by prohibiting the
    anonymous distribution of campaign literature.48 The law in question prohibited the
    publishing of any material advocating any issue without also publishing the name of the
    author in a conspicuous place. 49 In McIntyre, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to
    attendees of a meeting to discuss a proposed school tax, which advocated that the
    attendees vote against the tax. 50 The leaflets were signed “Concerned Parents and Tax
    Payers.” 5 1 Later, a school official who supported the tax filed a complaint with the Ohio
    Elections Commission, asserting that the leaflets violated the law because they did not
    identify the author.52 In holding that the law violated the First Amendment, the Court
    pointed out that “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but
    an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent.” 53 Although Ohio had argued that the
    law was a valid attempt to prevent fraudulent and libelous statements 54 and to inform the
    electorate, 55 the Court found the prohibition on all anonymous pamphleteering too broad
    to serve those objectives.56 While recognizing that the state does have an interest in
    preventing fraud and libel, especially during an election, 57 the Court balanced the state’s
    interest with the individual’s interest in free expression by recognizing that “our society
    accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.” 58

    4
    1. This is a brilliant comment. I remember going to the Deanery roll-out of Uniting in Heart and being made to sign my name to a feedback form. I remember thinking at the time- you will NEVER get honest feedback this way. You put together a roomful of people who work for the Church, who are dependent on the Diocese for a significant part of their family budget, who FEAR RETRIBUTION IF THEY SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE, and expect honesty?

      2
  6. The culture of silence and rule by fear which was used by so many bad bishops to cover their sexual and financial sins has now spread to Church governance as a whole. There is no transparency, there is no charity, there is no love of the faithful, there is little (or no) supernatural faith. This is Corporate Catholicism doing rebranding, restructuring and downsizing, all in a manner to conform to the world in order (they think) to survive. Instead, they will kill the faith of many little ones. The conflagration may strengthen the church in the long run… but it will be painful.

    1. I disagree that it could strengthen the Church in the long run. An entity that gives up its soul will not survive. And rightly so. Who would want a fraud of a Church? It is resistance to this foolish plan that will strengthen the local Church.

      1
  7. My wife and I went to one of the diocese info sessions of an evening and they shared nothing of substance. And questions were shut down. We had to write our questions/comments and include what parish we’d come from and the deacon and the outside team said our comments would be included in the next version of the plan. We emailed but never heard a word of reply.

    And when we asked our pastor about the whole plan he said he couldn’t talk about anything. I’ll always remember his words: “I’m afraid. I’m very afraid to say anything to anybody.”

    Does our diocese understand the devastating effect of hearing that from our pastor? This plan seems to be about secrecy, coverup and fear. I can’t hardly believe this and after 50 years of marriage, my wife and I are angry at the church for the first time!

    2
    1. Your pastor probably took very seriously the obvious threat in the Draft Guiding Change (whatever that is) issued from the Diocese:
      The “Not How” or the Unacceptable Means:
      “To privately or publicly speak or act in opposition to the Uniting in Heart 2030 Plan.”
      Perhaps, as in Soviet Russia or Communist China, someone might have reported your pastor to someone.

      3
    2. Does anyone remember the “listening sessions” that happened several years ago? A committee met with a small group from every parish in the Diocese. Where were the results from those listening sessions? They were never made public. The fact that your pastor actually said, “I’m afraid” speaks more truth than anything the Diocese has put forth so far.

      2
      1. I couldn’t believe it. Nor could my wife! Our pastor refused to even describe his fear. I’d never heard a priest ever say before he was afraid of his own Bishop. It really affected and still does my wife and I…

        2
    1. This is happening in our church NOW. And, hurting the Faithful NOW. Let’s not focus on what happened after Vatican II- I think it distracts from what is happening NOW.

      1. Very important point. Do not be distracted by problems that may be connected. This problem can be solved independently. Scrap Uniting in Heart. And try to get the money back that was paid to the consultants. But that would be icing on the cake, so don’t be distracted by that either.

  8. RE: Your initial question: The true goal is to acclimate to austerity measures, while obfuscating with a push for “equity” and “equal programming.”

  9. Thank you for your research, let us know your sources. I totally agree there is a huge lack of clarity. I hear priests and the pope calling for a larger role of laity in this plan and the future of the church, but what does that look like?

    2
    1. It looks like a people refusing to be stifled. It looks like people rising against tyranny in defense of their faith and their way of life. It looks like peasants with pitchforks and torches storming a castle. It looks a lot like the Vendee in the 1790s.

      1
    2. Agreed, please make sure this information is meticulously sourced. I’m seeing a lot of buzzy political words on here and not much substance, though I have yet to read every post, so my mind remains open.

    1. My only concern is that we will be powerless to change anything! The Diocese hasn’t listened to any of the laity (or dismissed the Laity that offered contrary opinions). How can we change what has been put in motion?!?!

      2
      1. We don’t need to have a sure-fire plan–or even a plan at all–before resisting a wrong. What we have to do is to start resisting. The rest will follow, and will depend on the people of the diocese. THIS initiative, the Red Wolf Report, is the first step. People will now realize that there are others who see that there is something terribly wrong in the diocese. It will energize others to speak out. And there is a certain number that the diocese will have to yield to. This is absolutely certain. No one knows what exactly this this number is. But it’s out there.

        2
    1. I always wondered why, after plodding through the long articles about Uniting in Heart, I understood nothing meaningful.
      It was meant to be. Equivocal language has been used by dictators and politicians to confuse and subjugate the people. Thank you for bringing to our awareness what is going on.

Leave a Reply

GUIDELINES FOR POSTING

1. No personal attacks against other posters.
2. No spamming comments.
3. Restrict comments to the topic of the post.
4. Pray, then post, as discussed before.

Your email address will not be published.