Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

RELIGION

The challenges of representing Catholic Australia

  • 20 July 2021
The Plenary Council First Assembly is only two months away, but uncertainty still remains about the role that its 282 members will play. Not just about what work they will do but what conception of the role they will bring or will be imposed upon them by the authorities. Their designation has changed from delegate to member, freeing them somewhat from the expectation that they will be tied to the views of their diocese or other ‘sponsoring’ body. But it has not resolved some perceived role confusion both among the members themselves and within the wider Catholic community. This confusion has important consequences. 

My member formation session last month was told, in the context of discussion about the part that connection with the wider Catholic community would play in the assembly, that the Plenary Council Assembly should ideally be a community but not a bubble. I was struck by this description because it nicely encapsulates the possibilities. There is a sense in which the membership should bond together to do its “job”, but not to the extent of shutting out the general community. This leaves room for individual members to be a bridge to the broader Catholic community and raises expectations that the Catholic people have a right and duty to communicate with them. 

My impression is that the Plenary Council organisers have always leant towards a narrow vision of the assembly. Members have been advised that they have no responsibilities beyond official PC duties. The PC authorities have also not tried to take obvious steps towards encouraging connections between members and the community. For instance, they have not provided public contact addresses, such as email addresses, which would enable the community to contact PC members directly. They have also allowed several members to continue in their role although they have left their dioceses temporarily for travel or study. This breaks the desirable link to community as they are no longer present among “their people”. 

The representative role may vary according to the different types of members. Many are ex-officio because they hold positions in dioceses, such as bishops and vicar-generals. Some are there because they are leaders of religious institutes. Lay members were mostly chosen from within dioceses. Some others were chosen from agencies and commissions, like the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council. The origins of all members probably bring with them some expectations that, in an unspecified way,
Forgot your password?
Subscribe