Building Dialogic Communities Of Faith: A Response To The Appeal For Dialogue From Pope Francis
By Frances Forde Plude
[Presented at the 2017 Theocom conference at Santa Clara University.]
Introduction
When thinking about how to begin – this opening – I thought back to an early article of mine entitled “My Multi-Media Marriage”. It was a reflection, by a relatively new bride, on how media were impacting my marriage relationship. The opening sentence was: “We didn’t buy a television set until a year after we were married… and that’s how I knew the honeymoon was over.”
Well, I don’t have an intriguing sentence like that to begin today, but let’s use the opening sentence of my recent article on “A Listening Church” in the Jesuit journal America: “How does the center of institutional authority – in the Catholic Church, the papacy and the Vatican – allow dialogue within a global, decentralized, talk-back culture? The answer is… with great difficulty.”
So, my subject, broadly, is dialogue within and outside of church. This section of the theological enterprise is called “ecclesiology”; and this part of the communication enterprise is called… well, dialogue or interactive communication.
First, an overview. I will share some personal roots, and then, refer, briefly, to a trail of thoughtful events linking the two areas of theology and communication. Next a stop at a rich junction posed by the theologian Bradford Hinze. Then, a quick trip to Europe for a unique project, both theoretically rich and uniquely practical. And, finally, a proposed project that could begin to move this communitive theology project into U.S. churches – to “people in the pews”.
A few things from my own personal story have affected my viewpoint on all this. I grew up in a small Michigan town with 3,000 people and almost a dozen Protestant churches. We had a tiny Catholic parish, almost a mission outpost, where the nearby Bishop’s secretary visited once a week to celebrate Mass. But my regular experience of church life around me was permeated by pot-luck suppers and terms like “fellowship” and “personal witness”. This was in stark contrast to our Catholic service in Latin where people came on Sunday, primarily for Eucharist, and they did little interacting with each other after Mass.
This was followed by four years of Jesuit pre-Vatican II education at Boston College where four courses each year of college watered my thirst for theology and philosophy. And, later, working within the Boston-area Catholic Church in an administrative post and in conjunction with ten other dioceses nationally I had a chance to learn TV production and put a new television station on the air. And do some graduate work in theology that fortified my Vatican II leanings.
Then, at age 42, I began three years of full-time doctoral work at Harvard and MIT to bolster my “on the ground” work in telecommunications, with a rich education in theory and research tools. My dissertation was dialogical as I conducted a Delphi exercise with leading policy makers on the issue of satellite-to-home government policies. However, it was important, as I look back on it now, that years of practical work in the field preceded this theoretical work. So, I am always haunted by the question: How can we move our theoretical studies out into the field? What does theology – and communicative theology in particular – have to say to “the people in the pews?”
Along with my personal story, communication and theology have a history of their own attempt at a marriage. Between 1984 and 1997 there were 8 Cavalletti Conferences (and follow-up conferences) – named “Cavalletti” after the villa outside Rome where most were held. Among topics covered by theologians and communication specialists in dialogue were these: communication as impacted by theology and philosophy (generally), by moral theology, by the U.S. Catholic Church, by ecclesiology, by theological foundations, by the new image of religious film, by media, religion and popular culture, and by rethinking theology and ministry in the light of current developments in communication. Many of these dialogues lasted a week as participants lived together, reacted to rich papers, and later published articles or books as follow-up.
Another thread began in 1993, when Father Bob Bonnot and I started to executive produce a decade of annual seminars within the convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. These sessions brought together a prominent theologian and communication specialist for a dialogue between them and with CTSA members. Some of these topics were: Lonergan/Rahner, Communication/Theology and Catechesis; A New Hermeneutic for Theology; Trinity and Communication; Narrative and Communication Theology in a Post-literate Culture; Preaching as Communication Theology; A Look at the TV series “Nothing Sacred” with the series creators; Ecclesial Reception, Communication, and Development of Doctrine; Cultural Contest and Theological Communication; and Music as an Expression of Theology and Communication. Among specialists featured were Paul Soukup, Paul Philibert, John R. Sachs, Terrence Tilley, Edmund Arens, Mary Catherine Hilkert, Thomas O’Meara, Bill Cain, Kevin Bradt, Richard Gaillardetz, Kathryn E. Tanner, Tom Beaudoin, Mary Hess and Tom Boomershine.
In addition, I remember organizing a Communication Theology small group discussion hosted by Robert Schreiter at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Among those present were Father Schreiter, the German theologian Hermann Pottmeyer, Father Bonnot, and several members of the International Study Commission on Media, Religion and Culture.
This international commission met annually for a decade in various sites around the globe – in Hollywood, Canada, Australia, Thailand, Africa, Brazil, Rome, and Ukraine, for example. Our Study Commission would stay in each locale for a week and hear presentations from local experts, dialogue about ideas, etc. And again, many articles and several books resulted. Very significantly, the funders then donated money to underwrite younger scholars in doing doctoral studies to continue the work. One young priest from India did his doctoral work in Australia, under the guidance of one of our commission members.
And we have added six years of Theocom conferences at Santa Clara University in California, with themes such as: Theology and Communication in Dialogue; Changing Models of Communication in the Church; Community in a Digital World; Ecclesiology in the Digital Age; and Digital Shepherding: Pastoral Theology and Ministry in a Digital Age. These conferences were hosted by Paul Soukup, S.J.
In this rich history, I feel a little like Forrest Gump. I have been present at many of these conferences and meetings. I have file folders full of notes. I have networked globally with most of the individuals working on the dialogue between communication and theology. And I have developed a Resource Kit of bibliographies of these writings I would be happy to share widely.
And now I would like to zoom in on several specific projects of special note. Both are of great interest to me because of my haunting question: What does all this have to do with the lives of “people in the pews”? Research indicates about 30 million Americans raised as Catholic no longer identify themselves as Catholic. What about the rise of “the nones” among millennials (those who identify with none of the religious groups)? What about the many parishes and congregations where people gather for Eucharist or a “shot-in-the-arm” homily and then rush home without forming a real faith community? How can this rich history of Communicative Theology and awareness of a digital dialogic globe reach people? How do we move from our studies and our conference papers out into “the real world” of faith communities?
One of my favorite theologians exploring this is Bradford Hinze, who holds the Karl Rahner Chair in Theology at Fordham University in New York City. Brad and I have had many conversations; he attended the first Theocom conference, and he has authored two books of enormous value on ecclesiology and dialogue. Hinze has served as President of both the College Theology Society and the Catholic Theological Society of America.
Hinze’s most recent book is Prophetic Obedience: Ecclesiology for a Dialogical Church. In this book, the author tracks how the two major gifts of the Second Vatican Council are the theology of the prophetic voice of the people of God in the church’s discernment and decision-making, along with the gift of collegiality. And how “the church as the people of God” theology was eclipsed by the two Popes who preceded Pope Francis. In contrast, as my own essay in the journal America explains, our current Pope implores bishops to be more dialogic.
Hinze’s “on the ground research” in this book studies New York Synods, Presbyteral Councils, Parish Pastoral Councils, and the chapter meetings and renewal of the Sisters of Charity. In an earlier book entitled Practices of Dialogue by the Roman Catholic Church the Hinze case studies include parish councils, diocesan synods, The Call to Action meeting in Detroit, the US Bishops’ pastoral letters on peace and the economy, the Catholic Common Ground Initiative, and the Adrian Dominican nuns’ Chapter procedures. So, he has been out among “the people in the pews” as he advocates for dialogic ecclesiology!
Hinze comments: “A Christocentric ecclesiology that stressed the divine character of Jesus Christ… theologically justified the Catholic Church’s hierarchy, institution and supremacy”. While affirming this, Vatican II “culminated in a new portrayal of the drama of the Triune God … a relational view of God’s identity – a dialogical church as a sign of a triune communion of diverse persons.” This concept of a relational God, and the view that communication is basically relational, appears as Communicative Theology began to take root in Germany and Austria. More about that shortly.
Hinze claims his research indicates that dialogue means that “people gain insight into both their personal and communal identity; horizons expand, minds and hearts change, conversions occur”. He notes that “In the Catholic Church we are still in the early phases of developing the skills of collective discernment and decision-making. We need to develop programs for cultivating such skills in local churches and centers for ministerial preparation, including seminaries…”
And now to the development of Communicative Theology in Germany and Austria. Brad Hinze and another colleague, Professor Mary Ann Hinsdale, of the Boston College faculty, have been active partners in this project. Mary Hess, one of our colleagues here, studied with Hinsdale at BC, and was involved as a staff associate at a Communicative Theology gathering at Fordham a few years ago. I attended that meeting and have been pondering this project ever since.
The real pioneers of Communicative Theology are Matthias Scharer and Bernd Hilberath. Matthias is here with us and Bernd has spoken at a previous Theocom gathering. I will speak briefly about some history and characteristics of Communicative Theology and how it seems to me to fit a need for introducing a dialogic process into U.S. parishes.
I am presenting this as one way to introduce communication and theology to people in the pews. It is not the only way. It just might be the best way. However, after decades of seeing theologians and communicators talk and write about these ideas, this seems to me a workable method for introducing Communicative Theology theory and practice on the ground. In the process, I maintain more vibrant faith communities can be formed from the ground up. I believe this would provide a systematic response to the urgent plea for dialogue we have heard from Pope Francis.
The key book of explanation is The Practice of Communicative Theology: An Introduction to a New Theological Culture, published by Crossroad. Here are some explanatory comments from Hilberath’s earlier Theocom talk. “Communicative theology is not a theory of communication… It addresses itself to the whole of reality – a trait it shares with the Theology of Liberation… Analogously, Communicative Theology has its foundation in God’s self-communication… in the revelation of a ‘communicative God’ … for all times and places …It arose out of the practice of theological communication within groups at Innsbruck University as well as programs for pastoral leaders and religious educators.”
As the work of Scharer and Hilberath converged, they followed three key convictions: 1) in theology content and method cannot be separated; 2) in theology, teaching and learning are only possible as a process; and 3) all of the participants must be taken seriously. Noting enormous communication deficits, Scharer introduced the methodology of Ruth C. Cohn into the ecclesiology of a communicating God, showing a desire to enter a relationship with all humanity.
Hilberath explains: “In a typical Communicative Theology working group, all participants are recognized as ‘experts’, each in their own way… (Ruth Cohen said each individual must be their own chairperson). A balance is maintained because discussions do not take place in an authoritarian, but rather in a communicative manner, which creates a space for personal witness”. We need to explore how this could work out in a parish.
In an introduction in the Scharer and Hiberath, Brad Hinze notes: “(These authors) are experimenting with, and reflecting on, group processes that promote personal and collective discernment and decision making in the church… they have developed a theologically integrated approach to group communicative practices that speaks out of the word and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council… (and) embodies some of the most important insights into the practices of Base Christian Communities and Small Christian Communities…” (p 9).
A fascinating aspect of this approach, inspired by Cohn, is that conflict within groups should be welcomed and addressed, facilitated by the group leader who is also a group member. Cohn stressed three axioms: 1) a human being is simultaneously autonomous and interdependent; 2) respect is due to all living things and their development; and 3) free decisions take place within external and internal limits; these limits, however, can be expanded. Communicative Theology adds these options: 1) an option for patience based on grace; 2) an option for the poor; 3) an option for standing fast; and 4) an option for contemplation and the mystical The ultimate norm is not the self-directed experience of the I, or the group-related experience of the we, and not the context of the globe. It is the experience of the communicative God (this content is called the It). within the space defined by all four dimensions.
The practice of Communicative Theology might come into focus if we explain a sample of a parish project we are conceptualizing. So, I will invite Matthias to come up here with me as we explain what we propose and then ask all of you to make suggestions that will guide us further in the project. On Saturday afternoon, after Mary Hess and Matthias and I arrived, we had a three-hour planning session about the project, but this is still very much a work in progress. The basic proposal is attached here in the Appendix below.
Appendix
PROPOSAL: Building Learning Faith Communities (LFCs)
Introduction
People of a certain age can remember when Catholic parishes and other faith communities were full and the spirit of these groups was expansive, energized and caring. Many things have changed.
There’s competition for our time and focus. Individualization and competition have increased. A secular culture competes with belief. Education has made many wiser (or more cynical). The second Vatican Council liberated many, perplexing others. And sexual abuse.
For more than 15 years The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University has conducted research and offered planning studies for various strands of Catholic institutions including parishes. They have focused on a cross-section of parishioners, so their data do probe the faith community in depth. [See Catholic Parishes of the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, 2017.]
In comparing numbers between 1965 and 2016 CARA found:
Priest numbers have dropped from 58,632 to 37,192
Parishes with no resident pastor = 549; now it is 3,499
Active diocesan priests per parish have dropped in half
Adult baptisms were 126,209; in 2016 they were 37, 953
Mass attendance: in 1965 = 55%; in 2016 = 22%
In 2016 over 30 million Catholic adults who were raised Catholic no longer self-identify as Catholic, according to CARA. And the Catholic school system – providing early grounding in their faith for Catholic youth – is about half the size of 1965 at the elementary-school level.
How can we energize communities of faith facing such changes? Most current projects (RENEW, Leadership Roundtable, etc.) focus on strengthening professional staff and top lay leadership in parishes.
This project, based on a long track record of theory and practice, focuses on a maturation process for “people in the pews”.
Background
The project Building Learning Faith Communities is based upon a workshop model developed by two European scholars in conjunction with Bradford E. Hinze, author of Ecclesiology for a Dialogical Church. Sister Mary Ann Hinsdale, of Boston College, has also participated in the workshop design. Both are past Presidents of the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA). Thus, the background history is of this project is unique.
In the darkest days of Hitler’s Germany, a gifted psychiatrist, Ruth C. Cohn, escaped to America. She moved “from the treatment of individuals to a pedagogy for everyone”. She “transformed her existential experiences (of persecution) into the hope of supporting humane action in all areas of society by strengthening individual and group self-confidence, combined with a vital system of values”.
During the past 30 years, Cohn’s methodology, known as “Theme-Centered Interaction” (TCI) has spread rapidly. As explained in the book The Practice of Communicative Theology by Matthias Scharer and Bernd Jochen Hilberath – the two European scholars mentioned above – churches are described as communities of communication.
They describe their model as a triangle within a circle. Imagine the three corners of the triangle as 1) the faith tradition; 2) individuals with their life and faith history; and 3) people in their groups and communities with their interactions. The circle surrounding this triangle represents the global reality of society and church.
Cohn developed techniques to help individuals grow in self-understanding and respect for others within a group (such as a parish). Her hope was that this respect for every individual would release each person’s gifts for the benefit of the entire group – in contrast to the degradation of respect for individuals during Hitler’s reign.
The team of Scharer, Hilberath, Hinze and Hillsdate have met regularly with others to guide research as workshops held in Europe attracted hundreds of individuals from parishes and dioceses. Hinze hosted a workshop at Fordham University which was attended by many theologians from throughout the US. Workshops have been conducted in Asia that were ecumenical; Scharer has worked with groups including Muslims.
Project Components
This project seeks support for a two-year pilot project consisting of six parts.
1. Analysis of the way workshops could enrich U.S. parish communities
This would be done through dialogue with parish members of a pilot group of U.S. parishes, with “people-in-the-pews”, with youth, and with people who have dropped out of parish communities.
2. Adapt the Workshop Model used in Europe to U.S. culture
This workshop re-design would be done by American individuals who have participated in the existing workshop model. This work would also be done in conjunction with selected parishioners, involving individuals of different ages, including youth.
3. Establish a network of a representative of U.S. Retreat Centers
These individuals would host workshops later at their locales. This will require gathering retreat representatives together to experience a workshop themselves. Some of this could be facilitated by teleconferences.
4. Organize a program of information to attract workshop participants
This systematic advertising effort would include contact with existing organizations like RENEW, the National Association of Catholic Family Life Ministry (NACFLM), and the National Conference for Catechetical Leadership (NCCL), along with the client list of U.S. Retreat Houses. Youth groups could also be targeted. This presupposes this project would supplement good work already being done by the above organizations (i.e., all such efforts support other parish-assistance projects).
5. Conduct a specific number of workshops in Retreat Houses across the U.S.
Participants would experience a Theme-Centered Interaction workshop at the Retreat; they would discuss ways these principles could be integrated into their own individual parish communities – where they would emphasize listening to others, encouraging parishioners’ self-development and faith-community support.
6. Project evaluation
Each Retreat House would commit to a thoughtful reflection after the workshop experience. Video conferences could be held with experienced workshop leaders to assess how to improve workshops during the life of the project.
After the two-year period a thorough evaluation would be done to determine how the project should be shaped for future Workshops. Materials could be published.