Australian Reforming Catholics

A Membership Application can be obtained by clicking HERE

AUSTRALIAN REFORMING CATHOLICS SURVEY RESULTS

Our Home Page highlights keeping members informed and providing a forum for their views. To an extent our arcvoice Quarterly seeks to do this. But in 2005 the Secretariat conducted a Survey of all members as a practical beginning to a studied inclusion of the members in ARC's way forward. There were 62 responses - a very good result. In 2006 another Survey was conducted with over 60 responses. The integrated results of these two Surveys are posted below. Please note that in 2006 some of the questions were googlies! For example, the answers to questions 2006 No. 2 and 2006 No. 5 under Theme E - Human Sexuality, were in the majority "No". Which makes these responses more considered?

Any Survey is a response to the questions asked. There will certainly be more and different questions that need to be asked. But there was a surprising support on all issues, enough to have the responses gazetted here as part of ARC's way forward. The way to alter this result is through the ballot box. Alterations, subtractions and additions must come from the members, and the Secretariat will facilitate that consolidation and expansion.

There is a tentative proposal to conduct a third Survey in 2007. Instead of polling on doctrinal or procedural topics, the intention would be to ask members how they feel they are being treated within ARC, what changes they would like and how they see ARC progressing towards its goals.

The original Survey allowed for Reservations to be expressed to each Proposal. The responses gave several pages of Reservations and comments (although most were broadly in favour of the proposals). A summary of the Reservations is included below.

Results of the Survey showing voting scores

THEME A: Administration of ARC

THEME B: People Power

THEME C: Rights and responsibilities

THEME D: Liturgy and Sacraments

THEME E: Human Sexuality

Reservations expressed by members returning Survey Papers

(Survey respondents are indicated by a number assigned to their survey return)

THEME A: Administration of ARC

No.:    Strike out financial. Some people can't pay/no alienation of anyone
No. 56:  How are policies endorsed?

No.:10   Would much prefer consensus on policy
No. 12:  Approval of absentee voting forms sentout prior to the AGM
No. 37:  I'd rather have more pressure on coming to meetings
No. 45:  Be aware of setting up Dogma
No. 56:  I do not go to AGM's
No. 60:  But please excuse me as a new arrival

No. 12:  There should be a second spokesperson available if the first is away or not available
No. 24:  Counted and voted upon by Chairperson
No. 33:  Appoint a deputy external ARC spokesperson to speak publically in case No. 1 is not available
No. 34:  Perhaps more than one (2?) are needed in case one is not available
No. 35:  Would that be on all issues? Maybe needs to be on basis of expertise and availablity. But I agree. It should only be with Secretariat approval
No. 36:  Not sure why this is recommended
No. 48:  Sometimes there can be specific circumstances
No. 62:  On contentious or obviously divided issues, suggest views/endorsement of Secretariat be sought before going public
A disapproving member wrote: How would absent members participate in discussion/interaction/decision making processes?

No.   2:  As long as a two-thirds majority allows you to make a decision. Don't be tied up by just one person or a tiny majority
No.   7:  With emphasis and education responsibility of All
No. 14:  "No one is in charge, all are in charge" does not reflect meaning of consensus
No. 26:  Could lead to confusion if no specified leader
No. 30:  Sometimes you need someone in charge
No. 31:  What is consensus? 8-1? 7-2? or 9-0?
No. 48:  As above but consultation should resolve
No. 62:  Can this really work effectively?

  No reservations

THEME B: People Power

? Not absolute of catholicism
   ?"motherhood statement". In terms of "is" the Church cannot be anything else

   ? can't really speak for "people"

No.   2:  As long as this does not preclude decision-making
No. 12:  Begin sentence with "Some"
No. 14:  Begin with "Hierarchical/Patriarchal:
No. 47:  But how, without chaos?
No. 50:  "own"? Applies to smaller churches, I would think

No.   2:  A meaningless proposition
No. 12:  Not clear meaning! In a mono-cultural small community or society injustice need not necessarily follow
No. 14:  "one culture" needs clarification/better expression
No. 27:  Not necessarily always the case
No. 50:  I probably agree but meaning needs clarification
No. 55:  Is it thought a mix of cultures would deliver justice? Or compromise? Too broad to fit one of the options

No.   6:  Would Not ********(illegible word) "modern science", whatever is meant by that, as emphasis on contemporary knowledge scholarship
No. 55:  Depending on the purpose, and the independence of scientists involved

No.   6:  They have campaigns, a la Presidency/PM?
No.   7:  After a process of being well informed
No. 10:  It is also important that members do not carry the day, for a Bishop cannot work without the full support of his clergy
No. 14:  People could elect "popular" person not one "qualified". Needs clarification. Could present as in Proposal 7
No. 27:  The people who elect need to be informed
No. 28:  Information re candidates needed
No. 33:  People to include clergy and religious
No. 41:  Difficult to know how parisioners would know would-be candidates
No. 38:  Could be too much like voting in NRMA Directors. Too little is known of candidates.
No. 42:  How could this work?
No. 43:  I would be happy to have an interim electoral college of proportionate members from deaneries representing laity and priests
No. 45:  Do not need bishops!
No. 46:  The leadership qualities of the bishop need to be scrutinised
No. 48:  What if people are given biased information e.g. censorship/controls through local pressure groups?
No. 50:  I would probably agree for smaller local or national churches but not for international churches
No. 50:  Depending on process

No. 24:  Participating members should increase
No. 28:  Final decision needs to be made otherwise another talkfest
No. 60:  If adequate preparation be given to people
No. 62:  Through participation of elected Parish Pastoral Councils NOT practical to seek participation of everyone

No.   6:  Need to see how could implement
No.   8:  People with competence to do so
No. 14:  It is important. Be definite - people are to participate. It is our money!!
No. 28:  Final decisions need to be made - otherwise talkfest
No. 31:  An accountable financial committee to be delegated
No. 41:  Committee would need to be appointed to make decisions
No. 62:  Again - through elected Parish Pastoral Councils

No. 14:  They do now. But PP's have legal rights over which laity have no power.Should be PP's to have legal rights with people
No. 28:  Who elects Council?
No. 52:  Replace "participate" with "have a deliberative voice"

THEME C: Rights and responsibilities

No.   4:  If they have expertise in the field.
No. 26:  The principle of the primacy of an informed conscience must always be respected.
No. 28:  Most Catholics not concerned about informing their consciences.
No. 44:  No need for "an". Statement is universal.
No. 56:  There is absolute good and evil.

No.   2:  What does this proposition mean? What responsibilities?
No. 24:  The injustice to existing ******(illegible) priests should be dealt with first.
No. 50:  An oversimplified statement

No.   2:  Surely within the context of the Church's belief?
No. 12:  It should apply more visibly in the Church (as the City of God) than in any secular society. The Church should be a "light to the nations", a model of freedom and justice.
No. 14:  Be specific - "Australian" secular society.
No. 24:  So many clergy and nuns and lay people continuously hurt others by "Participating"
No.47:  Freedom of speech and enquiry should apply in the Church etc.

No.   2:  Where specifically does the Gospel say this in the modern sense of discrimination?
No.   7:  <>Envigorate and encourage all church members tofollow Jesus in his embrace etc.
No. 14:  [discrimination] Seems too restrictive, needs expanding.

THEME D: Liturgy and Sacraments

No.   6:  Communities are heterogeneous and this needs to be part of expression.
No. 14:  Should have regard to tradition.
No. 23:  Where local culture conflicts with Christian values or meaning?
No. 36:  The liturgy around the world is always home.
No. 38:  Within reason and faith symbols
No. 55:  Reserve judgement. Could become rather amorphous depending on definition of local community and whether you include communities within a community.
No. 60:  Some communities are stuck in the Good Old days

No. 10:  It's already there. Restrictions on its use are what should be modified.
No. 35:  More correctly - "Should be expanded to include..."
No. 50:  Has this rite been suppressed?
No. 56:   ?

No. 61:  But not as being done in U.S.A.
No. 56:   ?

No.   4:  Sometimes can trivialise the content.
No. 14:  Add "based on Australian English". To be linked to Australian English (NotUSA/UK etc) - big cultural difference
No. 22:  It is up to the particular community to decide this. No discrimination should exist if one particular group wishes not to use exclusive language and stick with traditional language. Possibly different versions of liturgical texts should exist in order to cater for this?
No. 26:  This, of course, refers to texts that are not specifically male or female
No. 28:  Care here - preserve the literary purity
No. 36:  It can dumb down the text
No. 50:  Questions the "all". Needs further exploration
No. 55:  Haven't a strong opinion one way or the other. Neither approve or disapprove
No. 56:   ?

Return to Top of Page