The Leadership Roundtable
Further training on our diocesan restructuring is being provided at the diocesan level through the Leadership Roundtable organization.
It may be helpful for readers to have a clearer understanding of both the philosophy of church management espoused by that organization and the ways in which it is applied across a diocese. Some may also find themselves wondering what exactly the Leadership Roundtable is, and how it comes to have so much influence on our own and other dioceses.
Their website defines the organization as:
“An organization of laity, religious, and clergy working together to promote best practices and accountability in the management, finances, communications, and human resource development of the Catholic Church in the U.S. including greater incorporation of the expertise of the laity. We are a Catholic 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that brings together leaders from the worlds of business, finance, academia, philanthropy, nonprofit organizations, and the Church, to serve the Catholic Church.”
The organization works predominantly with bishops in the American church to provide consultancy on best practices, to provide training services like the “Toolbox for Pastors” and to shape organizational planning.
To delve a little deeper, however, one interesting read by an advocate of the organization is The Catholic Labyrinth: Power, Apathy, and a Passion for Reform in the American Church by Peter McDonough, a professor of political science with an interest in the workings of the Church in America.
Be aware that McDonough is a critic of what he sees as more conservative or “traditionalist elements in the Faith.” He considers these problematically regressive, and takes as a given that the right course for the Church would include things like the ordination of women, ending priestly celibacy, and so on—all of which he refers to simply as “reforms.” The popular traditionalism of ‘Catholics in the pews,’ the “sheeple who give off a waxwork spirituality” (page 174) remain an impediment to this:
“A near-sighted parochialism that no longer corresponds to the fluid post-enclave makeup of American Catholicism may be as stubborn an obstacle to reform as ideological recalcitrance. ” (page 28)
McDonough is a cheerleader of sorts for the Leadership Roundtable, and credits it with helping to advance a more modern and progressive model of the Church, largely by the way it opens the door to considering the Church as failing and “decomposing,” likening it to ”a structurally defective industry” that must be revamped in order to succeed. (page 282)
Tearing down what McDonough considers “the decorative elements” of the Church could be terribly costly, as proved by the mass exodus that occurred within Protestant denominations when they adopted modernized theology. So it has to be done in a gradual and deft-handed fashion. He is encouraged by the strategic plans of Leadership Roundtable in creating a situation in which a break from the past and old ways of thinking can be achieved gradually, with the matrix of power and influence in decision-making shifted, so that solutions forbidden by tradition (female ordination to solve the priest shortage, for example) can be considered on the basis of pragmatism and organizational efficacy. As his book’s summary states:
“Despite growing support for optional celibacy among priests, the ordination of women, and similar changes, and in the midst of numerous departures from the church, immigration and a lingering reaction against the upheavals of the sixties have helped sustain a popular traditionalism among “Catholics in the pews.” So have the polemics of Catholic neoconservatives. These demographic and cultural factors–as well as the silent dissent of those who simply ignore rather than oppose the church’s more regressive positions–have reinforced a culture of deference that impedes reform. At the same time, selective managerial improvements show promise of advancing incremental change.”
Leadership Roundtable’s strategies are among the “selective managerial improvements” that McDonough applauds.
Before going further, let’s pause to note that these opinions are McDonough’s own. He may be right or wrong, or something in between.
Readers should observe that he does not so much set out to prove that the strategies of Leadership Roundtable are aimed at changing Church teaching (and makes clear that the organization avoids becoming embroiled in theological discussion) as to argue that they lend themselves to such changes by altering the power balance and making corporate organizational effectiveness the new criterion for evaluating success.
Regardless of what one thinks of McDonough’s speculation on such matters, his book does provide a valuable outline of the organization’s founding, as well as profiles and interviews with some of its most influential players.
He notes that the organization was born from the consensus of a group of wealthy and influential Catholics who wanted some checks on the “managerial bungling” of the hierarchy, especially as regarded the abuse cover-ups by some bishops, and the greed, embezzling and lavish lifestyles of others. (page 183) Further examination by Roundtable’s founders suggested to them other “systemic deficiencies” and a lack of organizational capacity in the Church.
Bringing their collective knowledge from the worlds of philanthropy, Wall Street and crisis management, Geoffrey Boisi and the other founders wanted to create a consortium of bishops, benefactors and professionals to serve as cooperative insiders that could “be the agents of change with and within the church, to work towards transforming the church that we love.” (p.185)
Some of the organization’s leaders were deeply connected to the Church’s funding already, such as Kerry Robinson, whose grandfather led the Raskob Foundation for Catholic Activities & whose father helped create Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities or FADICA, or to other worlds of influence: Larry Welch, former CEO of Honeywell, Kathleen McChesney, former FBI executive, Robert Bennett, famously the attorney for Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case, and Chuck Geschke of Adobe Systems, to name just a few.
The Roundtable relies on a relatively small number of major donors, including the Lilly Endowment. “It marshals resources—funding, expertise, its network of elite contacts,” says McDonough (page 285), noting that “the financial clout of the Roundtable guarantees it a hearing.” (page 39)
The group worked to create strategies of organizational modernization for the Church, with bishops as their primary clients:
“The Roundtable’s diagnosis is organizational backwardness rather than malignancy. A managerial turnaround is the order of the day. The anatomy of Catholicism can be re-engineered.” (page 276)
McDonough hopes also that the cumulative structural changes brought about through movements like Leadership Roundtable will shift the power away from the clerical hierarchy toward an influential laity, ready with their donor dollars, to enact change, resulting in a modernized and renewed Church. Yet even McDonough is forced to admit that empirical evidence does not in fact suggest that this will grow the Church: “The causal chain linking mission, money, and a reinvigorated faith is tenuous indeed.” (page 198)
While the Roundtable seeks to avoid getting into theological matters, McDonough asserts that the tension is always present. “If the launching of the Leadership Roundtable required doctrinal uniformity, it never would have gotten off the ground,” he observes. (page 266)
Some of the group’s leaders openly advocate for modernization of theology or Church discipline as well as modernization of operations. A number of the organization’s leaders liason with various groups who work for such change. The Roundtable’s Kerry Robinson, for example, offers seminars to the FutureChurch organization, while Chuck Geschke has repeatedly addressed Roundtable itself with the following concerns:
“No women serving as priests is totally unacceptable in the twenty-first century. A woman pope would have nipped the pedophilia in the bud . . . . Let’s pay priests (male and female) a living wage and let them marry . . . . prohibiting birth control is just plain stupid. Women in clergy would have figured this out long ago.”
(page 256)
Geschke stated that such “major problem areas [and the Church’s] failure to address them is no longer an option if it wishes to capture my children and attract my grandchildren.” (ibid)
This illustrates the tension that McDonough references. Once one has accepted the premises that A. the Church is a stagnant and structurally failing institution, and B. that one must restructure its practices according to what works for other institutions in order for it to succeed, pragmatic but unorthodox demands like Geschke’s come to the fore.
As McDonough observes, “There are many adherents [to Catholicism] who can detail how one innovation or another violates tradition or offends those who simply want things to stay the same, without fuss. Apprehension can stifle thinking about the unthinkable. The status quo has been in place for a very long time.” (page 279) However, the ability to frame certain teachings as no longer credible or useful to institutional success provides a new and different way to win them a hearing. The ‘unthinkable’ becomes the smart, useful organizational decision.
No doubt the Leadership Roundtable also features many well-intentioned and less revolutionary Catholic minds, and as we’ve stated, they’ve attempted not to dabble in theological controversy. Readers should note that our purpose is not to trash the organization as a whole nor to claim it has nothing worthwhile to offer. We’re also not suggesting that our diocese’s consultancy with them represents some deliberate move against Catholic doctrine.
Yet McDonough’s unabashed aspirations for the Roundtable’s strategies–and the opportunities he has identified therein for those who think as he does–should give us pause to realize that there are dangers inherent in applying worldly solutions to the Church, and unintended consequences of drastic alterations to structure.
And even aside from McDonough’s hopes for theological modernization, there remain issues. For one, dealings with the Roundtable are often framed as the Church becoming engaged in better listening and dialogue with its people. But which people? Not the majority in the pews, but the powerful and moneyed few. And even more problematic is the treatment of the Church like a business, corporation or other institution. This remains a concern, even where other intentions may be pure.
Reportedly, the Roundtable’s Jim Lundholm-Eades is providing training for leaders in our diocese. Readers can view one of his presentations outlining the philosophy of a restructuring plan to another diocese here, and may also find it useful to look at an article he authored in which he concludes:
“The future of best practice in church management lies in thoughtful experiment, some of which will fail, and learning from experience. Our experience has taught us that best practice is, above all, a leap of faith….”
(All page citations to McDonough’s book are to the Kindle edition. Chapters Ten & Thirteen deal with the Leadership Roundtable in detail. )
Users Today : 14
Total Users : 152646
Total views : 501088
Who's Online : 0
34 Replies to “The Leadership Roundtable”
A few things have been bouncing around in my head from this most recent discussion:
-That the Leadership Roundtable was created as a response to the most “relevant” issues in the Church and most specifically the sex abuse crises in the Church:
“Sponsored by the Leadership Roundtable, more than 260 people gathered in small groups at, appropriately enough, round tables for a by-invitation only discussion of some of the weightiest questions facing the U.S. church in the 21st century….
The Leadership Roundtable was organized around that motivation 15 years ago and has been working on that premise ever since. The organization defines itself as a broad partnership among lay, religious and clergy “to promote best practices and accountability in the management, finances, communications, and human resource development of the Catholic Church in the U.S., including greater incorporation of the expertise of the laity.” That ambitious effort was conceived amid crisis and continues to be propelled along the crisis narrative, which began as one of sexual abuse and has metastasized into a diagnosis of failed leadership at every level of the church, from rectory to papal palace.” https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/ncr-connections/leadership-roundtable-brings-dose-reality-church
–First concern, this thing was produced from something that has admittedly affected our Diocese, but is also WAY bigger than our mostly rural diocese. Are we trying to put on pants too big for ourselves and not tailoring this project to meet our own specific needs?
-Next, the “Leadership Roundtable” developed two main goals in its origin to attack Clericalism and lack of transparency through increased transparency and co-responsibility:
“Leadership Roundtable measures its impact through follow-up surveys and an annual report. This year’s 41-page report lays out a plan to create “a new culture of leadership” to “heal the body of Christ.” It calls for greater accountability and less clericalism, expressing the need for more “clergy-lay collaboration and co-responsibility.” In order to make bishops more accountable, for instance, that “co-responsibility” requires two steps: to “engage laity, including women, on personnel boards for clergy” and to “involve women in initial and ongoing clergy formation.” https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/local-news/st-paul-native-steers-national-organization-to-train-church-leaders-and-heal-from-crisis/
–More concerns: based on posts at the “Redwolfreport” it seems that transparency has been lacking in this UiH plan, contradicting the proposed “goals” of this “big plan”. Also, has anyone considered the thought that co-responsibility may actually be a mis-leading remedy to making bishops more accountable by spreading out said responsibility?
Not only that, but in his letter on 11/11/19 to the US Bishops in anticipation of their Ad Lumina visits to the Papal Nuncio, Christophe Pierre, wrote:
“Each of us [Bishops] is invited to reflect on how successful we have been in integrating the necessary contributions of the laity, without abdicating our own responsibilities, including those of teacher and steward, as Shepherd who govern in the name of Christ.” http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/usccb-general-assembly/2019-november-meeting/upload/usccb-assembly-2019-11-nov-nuncio-speech-20191111.pdf
The Nuncio seems to be calling for not a “co” but a “balance” regarding responsibility which seems very logical, but as a lay person in this diocese, I’m failing to see this being met by our own Bishop, despite acknowledging the huge challenge this would be, it is clear based on feedback on this site and from personal conversation with others in our Diocese, that the Chancery has missed the mark on this point. There are also personal concerns with the Roundtable’s burgeoning feminist agenda (quotes from other posts come to mind of other women including religious sisters in the most influential positions of the initial Roundtables in addition to statements in more mainstream articles found on the internet re the Roundtables).
-Furthermore, Jim Lundholm-Eades, the man the Red Wolf claims personally met with our Diocesan employees, from his article linked in this most recent post states (and the first point which I might point out is verbatim to another anonymous poster on the “Redwolfreport” who stated they worked with our Diocese on coming up with these goals):
“1. Conversion to Christ occurs in relationships primarily at the local parish level, more than at the archdiocesan level;” https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/554/article/best-practices-church-management
–Even more concerns: At The local parish level this very clearly is not being met in the UiH plan based on the rumblings at ground level, and if those in the hierarchy would listen honestly, I think they’d be able to acknowledge they haven’t met this goal based on feedback. My hope is they’d realize this plan is not even meeting the goals set forth in the bigger Roundtable plan trickling down to the UiH plan.
“2 .Most people in churches are smarter and more capable than we or they themselves think they are;” again from Mr. Lundholm-Eades article: https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/554/article/best-practices-church-management
–A beef: I admit this may be more personal, but if Mr. Lundholm-Eades is advising our Diocese, they definitely don’t seem to be following this point just based on “Disgruntled Catholic’s” comment in this blog about the lay being “pitchfork holders” etc. I don’t want to go back to read it to find more quotes, because it made me lie awake before going to bed with tears wondering “what importance do I have? I’m just a little layperson”. But please know, Disgruntled, whether you read this or not, you are in my prayers.
Point 3 from Mr. Lundholm-Eades article: “Building capacity to face the future intelligently is far more effective than producing a Big Plan.” https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/554/article/best-practices-church-management
–Next concern: Would anybody go against me in saying UiH is not a “Big Plan”? Then the Chancery has gone against yet another goal from their teacher, Mr. Lundholm-Eades .
My points are that EVEN IF YOU AGREE OR DO NOT AGREE with this, it all seems to be absolute chaos and completely illogical. So, are we really going to dig in our heels and not reconsider? Any? Other? Implementation? No? Seriously? Please? Just consider.
That’s all for now.
I am sorry for your sleeplessness and the obvious trouble in your heart over this. But, these are brilliant questions and an excellent breakdown of all the places where UinH has failed. I pray every day that the blind conceit of our Diocesan leadership will stop and they will hear the cries of their people.
Thank you for the prayers and encouragement. We all need it!
Thank you for the link to the Leadership Roundtable website.
Surprisingly, after the in-depth quotations from Peter McDonough’s book (which is the focus of this post), I did not come across Peter McDonough’s name anywhere on the website or see any mention of his book. He is not on the Board of Directors, is not part of the staff, is not a co-host or sponsor, & is not a partner. Peter McDonough & his book appear irrelevant to the workings of the Leadership Roundtable.
According to the Leadership Roundtable website, their partners include: the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), foundations, nonprofits, colleges & universities, seminaries, & business schools.
In addition they have worked with over 70% of the dioceses in the US as well as a multitude of individual parishes, Catholic charitable organizations, religious orders, & Catholic schools.
Most indicative, is their Catholic Partnership Summit, “From Crisis to Co-Responsibility: Creating a New Culture of Leadership,” held February 28-29, 2020, in Washington, DC, was Co-Hosted by (among others):
-Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nunciature
-Archbishop Jose Gomez, Archdiocese of Los Angeles
In fact, this quote from the Leadership Roundtable website, by Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Papal Nuncio, states:
“The Catholic Partnership Summit provides a wonderful opportunity to advance our Holy Father’s vision for managerial best practices to better serve God’s people & promote the Gospel. I look forward to welcoming Catholics from across the country for conversation & collaboration to promote good models of management & leadership that will support the local Church in the United States.”
Maybe we should applaud the Diocese of Lafayette leaders for working with this organization backed by & supported by both the Papal Nuncio & USCCB President.
Interesting to hear that Bishop Gomez has endorsed the Leadership Foundation and served as host for a function.
Is this the same Bishop Gomez being investigated by secular authorities in California for failing to report sexual abuse of minors? The same Gomez who has failed to discipline notorious pedophile protector Mahoney. And same one who hosts in his diocese the infamous LA Religious Education Congress (do a little web search on this one if you want your stomach to turn)? The SAME Gomez who publicly appears at awards galas with the CA attorney general currently prosecuting hero Planned Parenthood investigator David Daleiden? The same one who seems more concerned with political social justice causes than addressing the deterioration of the faith in the United States?
Oh, it is the same Gomez? SWEET! The Leadership Foundation must be TOTALLY COOL.
Actually, LL, it’s no longer going to be sufficient for the bishops to point to “all of the other bishops who are endorsing/doing it.” There are too many false shepherds, and the cat is out of the bag. If our bishop wants to reverse the decline and preserve the faith, he’s going to have to take his cue from saints, martyrs and from Christ himself, not from obsequious power seekers and bandwagon politicians.
LL (obvioulsy a representative of the Diocese) makes a big point that Peter McDonough, the author of the book from which excerpts were quoted by the TheRedWolfReport article of May 16, is in no way connected with the Leadership Roundtable. As if this undermined the credibility of his book!!! To use this in an attempt to discredit information in the book (The Catholic Labyrinth: Power, Apathy, and a Passion for Reform in the American Church) assumes ignorance on the part of LL’s readers of “best practices” in evaluating books. A book whose author is not connected with the organization he is writing about is presumed generally to be more, rather than less, reliable than one written by an employee or other connection of the organization. And having looked up Peter McDonough’s book on the internet, it was published by Oxford University Press, which says something positive about the quality of the book.
Commenter E.B. has taken care of the other defense by LL (the Diocese) of the Leadership Roundtable. This was that the Leadership Roundtable is well-connected with the entities and people currently in power in the American Catholic Church. That is, well-connected with those who represent the very approach of Uniting in Heart! Which is the program that TheRedWolfReport is opposing!
LL seems (perhaps deliberately) to miss the point of the post, which did not claim that McDonough was employed by or directly associated with the Leadership Roundtable, but rather analyzed and endorsed the organization in his book “The Catholic Labyrinth.”
The Leadership Roundtable has indeed associated with many important people and has gained influence commensurate with its significant resources. I recall that Marcial Maciel enjoyed notable influence and endorsements from a number of dignitaries as well, including a sainted pope.
Nobody is saying that the LF is as malevolent as Maciel. But pointing out endorsements and associations is insufficient to defend the group and its aims, just as it would be insufficient criticism to point out that Blasé Cupich and Joseph Tobin were also hosts of the Leadership Roundtable 2020 summit (though one is tempted.) Some deeper analysis of the organization and questions about submitting to its influence are in order, and “Catholic Labyrinth” seems a good place to start.
A review of the personnel of the Leadership Foundation leaves one with the impression that they are a group that consider the current crises in the church to be problems of recruitment, customer service, accounting and “best business practices.” In pursuit of “better business practices”, they are happy to gloss over or totally ignore crises of faith, doctrine and worship and partner with anyone who is on board for radical change in the Church. The Red Wolf points out that Leadership Roundtable global ambassador Kerry Robinson associates with FutureChurch (see the link provided in original article for a shiver), and was also the keynote speaker at the 2019 conference of Women of the Church, a group that advocates for womens’ ordination.
Is that all that really bedevils our church? Is a simple corporate shakeup, a better org chart, a rebranding campaign, some more committees and slicker packaging going to cure what ails us? If, in the course of implementing all of these corporate practices, we ruthlessly sacrifice the real and beating heart of the Church, what will we have gained? Certainly, the consultants will have enriched themselves. But will the bride of Christ have conformed herself more perfectly to the Bridegroom? Or will she have further debased herself?
For clarification, I am not the Diocese, or a representative of the Diocese, as some have stated. I am a parishioner who thought this “independent forum” would encourage “discussion on issues that impact the faith & life of the Catholic Faithful in our area.”
Instead I’ve repeatedly seen inflammatory & misleading comments & personal attacks from a site that states: “Speak your mind in charity & truth.” On my own, I check sources this site references & fact check allegations.
How does a group encourage sending letters to Archbishop Gomez & later also attack him?
How does one even get to a point where they attack a friendly discussion on bees? Or a Good Shepherd homily, etc? This site prompted me to go find those things (& others) & listen to them after the attacks here.
How do these attacks unite our diocese? I sense an undercurrent here of sabotage & not discussion.
I pray for each of us to open our hearts to the working of the Holy Spirit, for the diocese, & that all things be done in charity & truth, so that we may follow Christ’s Great Commission to evangelize & spread His word to all the world.
LL, thank you for your contributions to the discussion. I truly hope you’ll stick around. I would like to see a thoughtful defense of Uniting in Heart, Fr. James Mallon, Amazing Parish, Divine Renovation, the Leadership Roundtable, and the decree regarding public worship during COVID, and I am working to keep an open mind to all of it. I agree with you that some of the comments posted here reflect not just trepidation but anger and hurt about this new and admittedly radical change being chosen by our leaders, as well as the deprivation of sacraments. I hope you’ll concede that the response of the diocese to this hurt and anger has also been less than temperate or pastoral at times, as reflected in some of the posts criticizing this site.
And scattered in between the vitriol being flung in both directions there actually HAS been some discussion, for those who have been paying attention. I for one didn’t know about the Amazing Parish model which appears to be the template for Uniting in Heart. I wasn’t aware of Fr. James Mallon or his books, or the Leadership Roundtable. And I didn’t know that the diocese was actively squelching criticism of the plan by forbidding public or private disagreement. I was certainly keenly aware of the deprivation of the sacraments, but the discussion regarding avenues to express my disagreement has been enlightening. And, like you, I have also been moved to research these things and carefully listen to what our bishop and other diocesan leaders are saying. I’ve learned a lot about what bishops in the United States have been doing, and I’m sorry I didn’t start paying attention sooner.
In the spirit of discussion which you seek, what points about Amazing Parish do you feel make it a good model? How do you feel about Alpha as a critical component of evangelization? Do you agree with the policies restricting the sacraments? Why? You are certainly as free as anyone else to come here and launch salvos, but if you wish to discuss things then feel free to explain and defend what is happening in our diocese. No doubt some will take issue or challenge you on some points, and some may nitpick or mock. But I promise thoughtful people are listening. You can accuse and cast aspersions, or you can engage.
I agree with LL – I came out of concern of what UiH was doing to the diocese and to parishes and thought there would be good discussion about it. Instead it seems like everyone has made up their minds and isn’t willing to look at any other viewpoint.
I know you were asking LL these questions, but I would love to speak about both since I’ve been in parishes where both were highly successful:
In the spirit of discussion which you seek, what points about Amazing Parish do you feel make it a good model?
Based on biblical leadership principals, Pat founded AP to assist and support pastors so they were able to run parishes more effectively and, most importantly, have the time and energy to dedicate their lives to the sacraments. In parishes where the leadership team model has been adopted, pastors have cited a renewed spirit for themselves and their parishioners; a return to putting Jesus in the center of everything, including decision making; increase in religious formation for kids and adults; increased confessions: Adoration; more parishioners active in the life of the church; and increased numbers in RCIA. Why? Because we’re actually assisting the pastors and not just sitting back and letting them do all the work. Instead, they’re able to use their gifts and spend more time being priests and less time being administrators. I’m not saying this will happen magically in every parish if AP training happens- but in every parish that has tried to adopt the principles and put them into action has seen fruit. It’s not easy, and it’s hard work – but it pays off.
How do you feel about Alpha as a critical component of evangelization?
When done correctly (because it can be done badly), Alpha reaches people on the outskirts of the parish that are just punching their cards on Sunday (or just Christmas and Easter) and helping them get out of the rut of “cultural” Catholicism. Jesus is placed in the center, there’s an emphasis on the Holy Spirit that is often lacking in our catechesis… Higher numbers in RCIA, more engaged parishioners, people actually feeling like their parish is their family and not just an obligation… Alpha is meant to be a “beginning,” a “pre-catechesis,” if you will, and so parishes that have run Alpha successfully follow it up with robust catechetical efforts that are usually very successful –studies of the Catechism, Bible studies, etc– because there’s been this critical pre-evangelization stage that is often neglected in our parishes.
Just my two cents.
To be clear, I don’t necessarily agree with UiH, all the priests moving, etc. But I don’t think Amazing Parish, Father Mallon, Alpha, etc should necessarily be grouped in with the bad decisions of UiH.
That’s certainly a strong endorsement, Nancy- thank you! May I ask which two parishes you refer to that use the Amazing Parish model and Alpha? Thanks for your insight.
Thank you for encouraging a dialogue. I’m encouraged by your comment that thoughtful people are listening.
Fortunately, Nancy B. did an excellent job of answering the questions you posed based on her personal experience. It can’t be said enough that the Amazing Parish model focuses on Jesus as the center of our Church. The same is true of Uniting in Heart: “The Eucharist was added to the Mission pillar to keep the presence of Jesus Christ & our encounter with Him at the heart of our mission,”
Again, all of this is just my personal opinion, but I found the Frequently Asked Questions on the diocesan website to be very detailed & helpful regarding Uniting in Heart & how it’s implemented. The website says feedback from 2,000 parishioners within the diocese was looked at & adjustments made as a result. The Catholic Moment is also filled with information about Uniting in Heart. I’ve never felt a lack of transparency regarding this plan.
My impression is also that this type of reorganization, to be effective, can’t be done in parts. This is a one time move of this number of priests to effectively set up the pastorates. Yes, losing your priest is painful- I really, really get that. As Catholics, we know this is a possibility every June. But moves wouldn’t happen if there wasn’t a reason or need.
As painful as it might be in the short term, I’m grateful the diocese is addressing the priest shortage. It will be too late if action isn’t taken now. It’s staggering to think that by 2030 this diocese will be down another 20 priests (due to retirement, illness, etc).
Not only is our Church experiencing a priest shortage, but what also makes my heart hurt, is the loss of our young people. We need a vibrant church that keeps everyone involved & engaged. Proper catechesis & evangelization is critical- & this is where Uniting in Heart & the Amazing Parish model excel. I found an in-depth read of the 3 Pillars of Uniting in Heart: Mission, Community, Witness to be very encouraging & enlightening.
Why not consider the benefits of the upcoming changes? Transitions are always tough. There is no way to please everyone. No system is perfect; no people are perfect. Through my personal research, I see Uniting in Heart as a way to address the priest shortage, catechize our young people so they truly love & stay in the church, provide resources & connections for parishioners & priests of all ages so we’re all engaged, all while focusing on the strength of the Eucharist & becoming missionary disciples.
Our diocesan leaders have a track record of solid, conservative Catholic theology & nothing suggests a departure from this. I see what I consider a necessary embracing of technology, to spread the Gospel. I’ve used the quarantine time to listen to homilies of our various leaders & pastors, watch what is on their FaceBook & other social media feeds. I find it encouraging that they’re using these tools to reach our young people (& others including myself) without sacrificing the centrality of Jesus as our Eucharist Lord.
Prayerfully submitted in a spirit of love & discussion.
Thank you, LL, for your comment. I do believe that Anon. was right- emotions are high- but there is good discussion here. I think we can also acknowledge that Amazing Parish might have done great things in places. However, I don’t believe that the living Church of Christ, filled with unique individuals, would respond to this program in the same way across the board. Why are we all being forced into the same mold? Also, why (if UinH is so universally good) are so many of our priests (in private and secret conversations) REALLY upset by it?
Which parishes are benefiting?
LL, thank you for continuing the dialogue.
I agree that Nancy’s contributions are excellent. Perhaps she will share the specifics of the churches to which she refers where these models have been implemented with such success so that we can all observe them. Other than Blessed Sacrament, have there been other forays into Divine Renovation and Amazing Parish in our diocese? Have we looked outside our diocese for examples? Certainly proponents will be able to hand select some success stories. Has anyone investigated whether these models have been implemented in some places and have NOT yielded desired results? Have the architects of UIH considered that not every parish is situated as Blessed Sacrament is demographically, geographically, architecturally, and financially? Is Blessed Sacrament a resounding success?
It is telling that the Eucharist had to be ADDED to the “Mission Pillar”, and somewhat undermines the claim that this plan BEGAN with Jesus Christ at the center. In candor, you’ll acknowledge some embarrassment that the Eucharist was an afterthought, right?
Thank you for your personal opinion regarding the helpfulness of the Uniting in Heart website. I have found it to be a jumble of newspeak and word salad slogans. It is less than transparent in that pretends that this was an organic development arising out of a series of conversations with the faithful of the diocese. It would have been helpful to acknowledge that this plan is exactly mirroring what is being done elsewhere, and let the faithful in on the parish models being implemented. This deception is compounded by the secrecy and bullying of those who challenge the plan, or even simply express caution and restraint.
The shortage of priests is a lamentable reality, but it is one the Church has faced before in various times and places. We should fear more that in the mad scramble to treat the symptoms, we will misdiagnose and compound the actual malady. Can you imagine the Superior General of the Jesuits in the 17th century hiring a consultant to tell Jogues and Brebeuf “You guys really need pastorates to lighten the load, and you should probably update your technology.” A handful of fishermen were sufficient two thousand years ago. A few brave blackrobes planted the seeds of the faith that spread like wildfire in the Western Hemisphere. A small number of priests nurtured and even spread the faith in catacombs, behind the iron curtain, and even now are doing the same in communist China and in the face of martyrdom in Africa. Yes, we want more priests and the shortage is hard. But the question has been asked before on this page and bears repeating- why not look to dioceses where vocations are growing, and ask what they have done? Why only plan for shrinkage?
For more than a century we’ve been saying, “If we just try this new thing, that’ll turn us around.” The newest music, the newest architecture, the newest style of preaching, the newest philosophies, the newest scriptural interpretations, the newest technology, the newest way to “connect” with young people… and the entire time that we have been conforming to the world, we have seen a steady hemorrhaging of souls, young and old, and a steady weakening of faith and of doctrine among the few who remain.
As we become unmoored from the past in ways material and tangible, it becomes easier (perhaps unintentionally, but I fear frequently quite with purpose) to separate ourselves from things abstract and ineffable. We add pop music, modern fashions of dress and gender equity, Protestant styles of worship, modern architecture, new technology, and preaching that will “resonate with” (i.e., not offend) modern man. We jettison (or at least never mention) ancient teachings about family, authority, heresy, and sexual behavior.
Having plumbed the depths of pop psychology, new age mysticism, modern architecture, art and music and finding insufficiently attractive newness, we now turn to the world of business for inspiration. They have told us to redeploy assets, focus on core competencies, create synergies, rebrand, advertise, increase market share, update systems, get vibrant, and do it now, because the supply chain is crumbling.
I fear that Uniting in Heart is chasing the same thing that church leaders have been collectively grasping at for a long time now. Perhaps we should recall what G.K. Chesterton had to say in The Napoleon of Notting Hill: “And in the darkest of the books of God there is written a truth that is also a riddle. It is of the new things that men tire–of fashions and proposals and improvements and change. It is the old things that startle and intoxicate. It is the old things that are young.”
I should also address the contention “this type of reorganization, to be effective, can’t be done in parts.” It is well that you acknowledge this is merely your impression, because it has no basis in reality. There is no data to support this contention, and the weight of history is against it. Prior apologists among the commenters have rankled at comparisons of UIH to totalitarian regimes, but the fact remains that it is RADICAL systems that have to be implemented suddenly, sweepingly and boldly. There is nothing preventing improvement (perhaps even including some of the parts of Amazing Parish) being achieved cautiously, incrementally and with humility.
Even Mssr. Lundholm-Eades acknowledges that some of the “thoughtful experiments” of restructuring along the lines he proposes will fail. Change need not be uniform, utilitarian and sterile, so why put all of the eggs into one basket? Why do it so sweepingly, so arrogantly? Why use a cookie cutter approach?
Would you like to conduct a REAL thoughtful experiment? Leave a few parishes untrampled by your radical innovations. Let them explore old things, even ancient things. Perhaps even let them have a regular*gasp* LATIN MASS. Could we see if THOSE parishes could be vibrant, too?
I’d be happy to share, although I’m no longer in the diocese and I don’t know of other Lafayette parishes who are following the Amazing Parish model or running Alpha. I will say, though, that AP is not a one-size-fits-all program. Rather, it provides basic principles for the pastor to implement. So in response to the question about forcing parishes into the same mold – maybe that’s a critique of UiH, but I don’t think that can be said for AP.
I know of parishes who have implemented AP well in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Tennessee. Having attended an AP conference, I met countless others. Again, it’s not a bullet-proof plan. It requires hard work and it requires the leadership of the pastor.
I know of a pastor in Cincinnati – a former classmate of mine – who became pastor under very difficult circumstances, had to juggle multiple parishes… he flat out told me that implementing the AP model not only saved the parishes and his vocation, but likely saved his life. He was not exaggerating, and he’s quite open about it.
I agree that we don’t need yet another program to spread the Gospel. The Church is not going to be saved by programs! But clearly… what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working. (I could be wrong, but very few of our parishes are bursting at the seams with vocations, people coming in to the Church, full adult religious education programs…) So should we be scared to try something else? I agree- look to the dioceses that are vibrant and growing, rather than those shrinking. Phoenix, Denver, even Detroit of all places. Many of these places are returning to preaching the kerygma, a focus on one’s relationship with Jesus Christ, an invocation of the Holy Spirit and a discernment of the charismatic gifts… things that the Church has been doing for 2000 years (and frankly, things I have found to be very present in both Amazing Parish advice and things like Alpha).
I’m not minimizing the hurt and pain that UiH might be causing. I know what it’s like to lose a beloved pastor, although in my diocese we almost never have pastors more than 6-10 years.
As I’ve said in previous comments, I pray for the leadership of your diocese and for all of you. It’s a really hard situation and I don’t mean any of this to make light of the mess.
Thanks again for your thoughtful input, Nancy! You pointed out in your first post that you have been in parishes where both Amazing Parish and Alpha were highly successful. Which parishes are those, exactly? You added that you know of other parishes which have had good results, and I’m sure we can all do some research and find positive testimonials in this marvelous internet age. I have been to the Amazing Parish website and it DOES sound really impressive. I’m mostly curious about your personal experience, and would love to hear more about it.
I also have personal experience in churches that were highly successful according to some metrics, and certainly appeared vibrant if judged by the number of social events they held, the volume of the band at Mass, and the enthusiasm of the young “Worship Team.” For a few years the church even had vibrant RCIA numbers. In one such church I was inspired to join the effort and signed up to be an RCIA sponsor. I found a program that was heavy on emotion and kerygma- though my experience predates the current fascination with the latter term- and paper thin on theology and catechesis. Needless to say, the church was also very invested in current technology, but sadly it was also a hotbed of dissent and liturgical abuse, going so far as to remove kneelers, actively encourage changes to responses in the liturgy (“for our sake and the sake of all God’s Church”, e. g.), and foment for women priests.
I completed the RCIA program, gave a rosary and biography of John Paul II to my sponsee and moved away a couple of years later. I am ashamed that I did not keep in touch with my sponsee, but by odd chance I met another member of that same RCIA class in Indianapolis about ten years later, as we had pursued the same profession. I couldn’t recall where I knew him from immediately, but eventually placed him and remembered the enthusiasm with which he had spoken of joining the church. I pointed out where we had first met each other and inquired after his faith, and I’ll never forget his response: “Oh, that was back when I was Catholic… I don’t do that anymore.”
Anyhoo, it’s just a little anecdote. Perhaps there’s nothing to learn there. I’d love to hear more about your friend in Cincinnati. What church is he at?
Also, thank you for your prayers and your sympathy about the hurt and pain, etc. But it’s really about much more than priests moving. I hope you and others will acknowledge that thoughtful people are really concerned about the whole program.
Thank you E.B. for highlighting the fact that this website and people’s concern are about so much more than “their priests being moved”! The majority of people are used to pastors being moved every few years anyway- except for a handful in the Diocese! There are so many other problems with the plan (from start to finish) that people are concerned with.
Hey, while we’re at it, why not let some of the other luminaries from that February 28-29, 2020 conference in Washington, DC grace us with some of their wisdom and bright ideas:
• Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archdiocese of Chicago: “The Pope has a bigger agenda. He’s got to get on with other things—of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this [McCarrick scandal].”
• Cardinal Seán O’Malley, Archdiocese of Boston: From November 2019: “The intention is to publish the Holy See’s [McCarrick report] response soon, if not before Christmas, soon in the new year.”
• Cardinal Joseph Tobin, CSsR, Archdiocese of Newark: “Supposed to be airborne in 10 minutes. Nighty-night, baby. I love you.”
• Archbishop Wilton Gregory, Archdiocese of Washington: “…the Church must welcome all of her sons and daughters—no matter what their sexual orientation or life situation might be—and that we have not always done so with a spirit of compassion and understanding. I spoke of the distinction that our Church makes between orientation and behavior, which admittedly needs reexamination and development.”
• Archbishop Charles Scicluna, Archdiocese of Malta & Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Heterosexuality and homosexuality are “…human conditions that we recognize, and that exist, but they aren’t something that really predisposes to sin.”
• Mr. Sean Callahan, Catholic Relief Services: “Just like the coronavirus, climate change is a great equalizer…”
• Sister Mary Haddad, RSM, Catholic Health Association: We must “…rally advocates and to work with this administration to expand Medicaid and protect and enhance the A.C.A. [Obamacare]”
• Father Dennis Holtschneider, CM, Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities: Noted for being president of DePaul University when it became the first Catholic university in the country to offer a LGBTQ Studies academic minor.
• Sister Donna Markham, OP, Catholic Charities USA: “I don’t think women’s ordination is going to happen in my lifetime.”
• Sister Carol Zinn, SSJ, Leadership Conference of Women Religious: “All that we know about this life must be held lightly so conversion of worldview, ideology, ecclesiology and theology of this life in view of the God of the future can emerge.”
MAYBE instead of following Bishops who continue to go down the wrong road on VARIOUS issues contrary to the true teachings of Jesus, you and your peer should consider following the example of the Bishops who this past JUNE lead a group of more than 2000 Parishioners in a Eucharistic procession through the streets of Madison, Wisconsin??? Maybe instead of looking to destroy parishes with the Uih “program”( that will fail), and taking monies from secular corporations, you should be trying to help build the relationships and the work many of our Priests have put in for several years nurturing vocations and Sheparding their Parishioners by not thinking of yourselves and your own desires to pat yourself on the back. Maybe you should pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit and take advice from those who have contrary opinion to get to the real truth of the matter???? What do your Brother Priests have to say about this program? What do they say about taking money from secular corporations?
Has anyone read or heard of the reason for (not necessarily a good reason) why all the priests need to move?
Probably to inflict maximum chaos so as to do away with all “old ways of doing things” and initiate a revolution. It’s a classic Marxist maneuver: Do away with all round pegs and then start jamming your square ones into the round holes. Total dumpster fire.
Because those who can move them do so to push their own agenda? Just the same as hiring people into positions that will follow their agenda without question or regard for others.
Funny I witnessed a lot of this at the Church of the Blessed Sacrament while I was a parishioner there, when Father Ted Dudzinski came in.
A huge thanks to the Red Wolf for your meticulous research. I agree with E.B. This is a depressing read but absolutely important to know where, when, how, and WHY the Diocese is shoving this plan through regardless of what people think. Please keep the posts coming!!!
We realized that a meta-framework for dealing with change was needed. Such a framework requires some basic assumptions. A blue-sky group of some archdiocesan leaders and creative people from corporations, a university and state and municipal government met just six times. Among the outcomes of that group’s work were three basic assumptions that guided our design and practice of archdiocesan administration.
1. Conversion to Christ occurs in relationships primarily at the local parish level, more than at the archdiocesan level;
Well yes to Lundholm-Eades point 1) (from article reference at the en of the post) But in as much as we are talking about UIH moving 80%+ of the pastors and in as much as the Cheesborough gentleman thought that too much devotion to local parishes opposed “the mission of the Church.” Cannot one argue on those grounds alone that UIH in fact NOT “best practices”
This is thoughtful, in-depth analysis and exactly what we need right now. Great work, Red Wolf. As sickening as this is, we need to know what’s behind this.
I have to wonder if the pew people have any idea of the plan behind the plan?
After this garbage is implemented, soon there will hardly be anyone left in the pews of this diocese to care.
Just so any of those who care are aware, I am one of those who from the pews did not at first see the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” going on here. But it appears that the vicar general in the Lafayette Diocese calls the shots. He has introduced this program from behind the scenes at Blessed Sacrament in West Lafayette, Indiana and seeks to keep the movement going by manipulating all avenues to get it done. His frustration with the progress of the movement has been most noted in one of his sermons just before COVID appeared. In that while showing his frustration at the pulpit he commented that “anyone who has left Blessed Sacrament since his arrival has done so because they aren’t truly Catholic”. Does this indicate that anyone who does not agree with his opinions will be removed and or do not hold up to his standards? People like he who hold these offices throughout the world in the Catholic church have completely missed the point. It is not about programs and music or theatrics in the sanctuary, drums, cymbals or electric guitars. It is about JESUS CHRIST and reverence for him. Love is not a talking point, love is not a drum or a special program. Love is JESUS CHRIST and the reverence with which he is treated with in his own home, starting with Saint Mary’s in Lafayette, Indiana is obviously not there. You cannot even see the Tabernacle at this church and it appears to be in jail. So if we do not give Jesus the most revered position in his own home built for him, how are we as parishioners supposed to look at those in charge as leaders of the church? If we cannot as parishioners do not see reverence, you as Catholic leaders will not see vocations, attendance at Mass or people utilizing and living the Sacramental life. ” I know my sheep and my sheep know me” There are some places in the Lafayette Diocese where it is obvious the attention is on Jesus. One of those is Saint Boniface. Led by a Priest with the deepest devotion to Jesus. It shows with the Tabernacle and its position in the church. It shows in the attendance at Mass, the confession lines, the response to participate in all facets of the church. But unfortunately he has touched a nerve, with a man whom has made it his job to remove this Priest from a post he has excelled in. But he worst part about it isn’t that he removed him from this place, but from having a Parish all together. It appears this is being done because he won’t fall in line. Because he refuses to accept the false teaching that running a parish as a business is the way to invigorate the parish. It is a sad day to see that the wolf has made it into running the hen house and he who can stop it all has refused to see.
Let us pray for him.
I have to wonder if the Diocesan office even cares what they think??