2. Nina Lake welcomed everyone to the meeting which was her first as Chair. She greeted new members John Buckley (Winchester), Jim Mc Govern ((Windsor and Maidenhead), Andrew Moore (South Berkshire) – and also Anne Lambkin who was standing in for Terry Weston (Aldershot). Nina reported that Jeanne Coates had now left the Council, and thanked her for her past contribution.

3. In opening, Nina paid tribute to her predecessor Graham Dorey who had been at the helm since the inception of the PCDP, and said a ‘thank you’ card would be sent to him signed by Members. Nina said there would be an adjustment to the Agenda because of the need to incorporate an Item that had come in at the request of the Council of Priests; this concerned the Diocesan Levy and would be taken later on in the evening.

Session 1

4. In presenting feedback on the ‘Position Paper’ on Emerging Patterns of Lay Leadership (which had been opened up to Deaneries and Parishes for their comments following the PCDP meeting in June of last year), Angela summarised some of the key observations on the ‘Collated Responses’ paper, which had been circulated to delegates before the meeting:

- there were lessons to be learned about initiating such a wide discussion across the Diocese – but it was the first time an exercise of this nature and magnitude had been attempted through PCDP channels.

- the paper had not been easy to work with and eliciting focussed responses had been difficult; next time targeted responses would be sought.

- it was accepted that it was not a pure ‘Position Paper’ – rather it rehearsed the background information on Lay Leadership and, among other things, proposed areas for pursuance.

- taking an overview of responses, it was considered that very valuable insights into the subject had been generated and it was evident that a significant amount of thinking had gone into constructing responses.

- all in all, the exercise had been very instructive, had been worth the effort, and encouraged a repeat.

5. In the ensuing discussion, it was considered that the process had been sound and that problems were only to be expected on what was a learning curve in mobilising Diocesan-wide debate on such a broad subject. Further replies from Deaneries were yet to come in and these would be collated in due course. A factor here was the reality that Deaneries hold their meetings at different times and in a pattern which did not align with the PCDP’s. It was anticipated that further inputs would broadly corroborate viewpoints already received – reflecting the experience at Angela’s Workshops.

6. Bishop Crispian said there was a need to feed the encouraging results of this exercise into the development of the Diocesan Strategic Plan, which would come before the Council tomorrow. Lay Leadership needed to be seen as part of the bigger picture and it was important not to have the two processes, relating to Lay Leadership and the Diocese Strategic Plan, running in parallel, but to develop the Strategic Plan as the primary work which would incorporate Lay Leadership issues.

Diocesan Levy

7. John Nelson introduced this item by explaining that both Iain McGrory and John Clark, when running the Diocesan Finance Department, had looked carefully at the whole issue of the Diocesan Levy.  A lot of work had gone into producing a balanced budget for central expenditure in the diocese whilst realising that about 96% of all that we spend centrally comes directly from parishes in the form of a Levy.  Concerns had been expressed about the unfairness of the present system.  The original method of calculation was simply to use Mass Attendance - a basic Poll Tax.  About seven years ago this gave way to a system where half was raised on Mass Numbers and half from a tax on parish income.  The idea now is to move entirely to an income tax based system.  Two models were put before the Council of Priests: one based on a flat tax on all income; the other based on bands - as personal income tax is calculated.  This second model has been accepted by the Council of Priests in which there would be no tax on the first band, 20% on the next band and then 25% on remaining income.  This should produce a more straightforward system as the three Levies (Diocesan, Schools Building Fund, National Catholic Fund) will be consolidated into his one Levy billed to parishes four times a year.  Moreover, it is intended to provide parishes with a more detailed breakdown of how the money is spent in the diocese.

8. John went on to say that at this point the level of parish contributions for 2004 had not yet been set.  When settled it would in future be based on figures from two years ago - to avoid the need to await Parish Financial Returns.  Therefore, in the autumn of 2004 the amounts could be set for 2005 based on the figures already received from parishes for 2003.  Regarding funding for Catholic Schools, John could foresee funding problems over the next 5 years.  In concluding his talk, John stressed that 'finance' should not be dictating priorities.  Essentially, it is the other way round: it is the task of the Finance Department to determine the best way of funding what others have decided needs to be done.

9. Bishop Crispian briefly commented on two points: that it was good news that VAT had been removed on listed churches, and that he had just opened a new school in Lymington – without Diocesan funding this would not have been possible.

Matters Arising

10. Nina asked Members to let the Executive Secretary have any amendments to their postal or e-mail addresses to ensure that the record is kept up to date so that any messages are despatched correctly.

11. Curia Plan. The 2004 edition had been distributed at the last Council meeting for wider circulation, and Nina asked if any issues had been raised as a result. Aspects relating to Child Protection were highlighted, particularly in respect of the large numbers of people to be ‘checked out’. It was reported a lot had been vetted (including teachers and School Governors), and each parish has a Child Protection Officer, or representative. General superintendence of regulations to ensure compliance with Child Protection legislation is vested in Fr Nicholas Reynolds, Diocesan Child Protection Officer, who is co-ordinating matters across the 108 Diocese parishes.

12. Strategic Plan. This would be covered in tomorrow morning’s session.

13. Liturgy of the Word/Eucharistic Services. Whilst the presentation by Bill Wilson and Paul Inwood at the last meeting had been informative and thought provoking, the debate remained open ended with, at this stage, no firm conclusions able to be drawn. Members were unanimous in finding the session useful and the issues raised would need to be the subject of on-going dialogue with Deaneries and Parishes. It was envisaged this could be part of the consultative processes associated with developing the Diocesan Strategic Plan. The point was made that some of the issues went beyond the Diocese of Portsmouth, and are the subject of wider on-going discussions.

14. Communications. Paul Townsend said that the complexity of topics addressed by the Council made the process of sharing them with Deaneries and Parishes very problematic. Airing specific issues at meetings which also address other topics is not as fruitful as would be wished.

15. Deanery Pastoral Review. Work on this remained on-going. As an example of this, Christine McGrew mentioned that Fareham was hosting a Parish Day on 27 March.

16. PCDP Review Working Party. Further progress had been achieved by WP Members but no updated report had been received by the Chair. It was hoped to have something ready for Members at the next meeting.

Action: Executive Secretary

17. Bishop Crispian led on this item, which had first been introduced at the Council meeting in October last year. He explained that there was a need to develop strategic planning in the Diocese that would establish principles by which change in Deaneries and Parishes could be managed, so as to plan the shape of the Diocese over the next ten years and beyond. He saw the plan as being only partly occasioned by the diminishing number of priests, so that it would not therefore be a case of managing decline. Rather, it would be concerned with the more positive utilisation of Diocesan resources – of which Priests are a very precious one. The source of the principles of the strategic planning is to be found in the Bishop’s ‘A Church for the 21^st Century’, first launched in 1997, but recently updated to reflect common currency. This will be the text from which the basic principles for the plan will be drawn.

18. In describing the process that will take the development forward, Bishop Crispian stated that two particular groups will be formed. The first group, ‘The Implementation Group’, will be made up of members of the Bishop’s Council, the PCDP Executive Committee, and Sr Mary Jo Martin – with the Bishop as Chair. This group will own the whole process of consultation that will necessarily precede the establishment of the Diocesan strategy – a process that will culminate in the Diocesan Assembly (as discussed at the last PCDP Meeting) planned for July 28 to 30 July 2005. The second group will be headed by Paul Townsend, comprising members of the first group, plus others, which will undertake all the work relating to the preparations for the Assembly, as well as attending to the detail of the consultation arrangements. The first task for both groups will be to draw out of ‘The Vision’ the elements to go in the Plan. Discussions and consultation will begin in the Autumn, with the first feedback at Christmas time. This will be distilled so as to launch a fresh wave of consultation the following Spring. The Assembly will be a celebration of the culmination of the process of consultation and ownership – with the Plan representing the consensual views of Deaneries, Parishes and Diocesan Schools. (Attached to these minutes at Enc 1 is a copy of Bishop Crispian’s speaking brief ).

19. Paul Townsend, in following this up, stated that he considered the project a major undertaking with the process for engaging people in consultation extremely challenging – particularly in helping parishioners understand the principles involved - because there cannot be any gaps. He saw the ensuing work being firmly based on theological principles which would integrate the thinking on initiatives already explored within the Council – such as that on the Lay Leadership, Sunday Eucharist, and Permanent Diaconate, and, furthermore, would embrace Diocesan schools and have an ecumenical dimension. He asked Members to dwell on the Bishop’s words for a few minutes and to consider, in small groups, what the issues are that the PCDP would want to feed into the Implementation Group.

20. Bullet points reported:

• Communication was vital; in this connection the PCDP WP, looking at ways of improving the efficiency of PCDP Meetings, had drafted some proposals (not yet ready for circulation but to be integrated into the process)
• More formation for parishioners to understand theology. PCDP Members have experienced some formation
• Parameters for discussion must be clearly set out; what are the ‘givens’?
• Need to re-inforce the role of Church in evangelisation and Mission
• Need for greater relationship between God and each other – prayer for greater love of the Church and God’s kingdom – spiritual renewal
• Changing peoples’ minds is a major exercise
• The need for change has to be forcibly stated; it will hurt some, but liberate others
• The reaction of clergy will be paramount; fear was mentioned
• The Implementation Group will need to build close ties with Deaneries
• The increasing diversity of people in Diocesan congregations in 2010 et seq will need greater recognition
• Measurable objectives would be desirable
• There are difficulties in making communities flourish with fewer priests
• There is a natural tendency for people to want to stay in their own groups – tension - the Deacon’s potential role here
• The whole process would be on-going; it might be advantageous for a periodic ‘Bishop’s letter’ to be sent out to Parishes as developments occur to maintain momentum
• The need for grass roots to be engaged

21. Kathryn Turner led the liturgy, taking ‘the lights of the schools in our Diocese’ as the theme and as a precurser to the next item.

22. Sr Mary Jo Martin, as Head of the Department for Schools, had been invited at a previous PCDP meeting to give a critical presentation to Members on the work of her Department. She was assisted in this by Christine McGrew. Mirroring comments made earlier in the meeting, and underpinning the importance of Diocesan schools, Mary Jo said they were integral to the Diocese. She illustrated her talk with a series of vu-graphs encompassing the key elements of Mission, Responsibility, Structures and Resources, which were accompanied by hard copy material showing facts and figures on Catholic schools and young people in the Diocese of Portsmouth. For over 27,000 pupils, the Department’s aim is to make effective for all schools in the Diocese the reality that we are a community sharing a common vision of the purpose of Catholic education for our young people. God is at the heart of everything the Department does and lives out in principle and practice the values of the Gospel and the teachings and traditions of the Church; it is this that makes Catholic schools different. The ‘community of faith’ is a very strong guiding principle.

23. A synopsis of the comments made by Mary Jo and Christine (who spoke from her perspective as a head teacher in a Catholic school) is:

Mission. Schools work towards the Bishop’s vision for both Community and Mission, to develop a sense of community between parents, school and parish. The work is also ‘missionary’, bringing the ‘Good News’ to the many pupils whose non-Catholic parents want them to have Christian-based learning.

Responsibilities. The partnership between home, school and parish brings different roles and responsibilities. The Governing body has Foundation Governors who are appointed by the Diocese to work on its behalf to promote Catholic education. Their responsibilities are many: Health and Safety issues, target setting for Year 6 SATs, agreeing budget allocations for school expenditure and so on. Many schools provide Home-School Agreements, based on Christ’s teaching. The role that parents play in their child’s education is valued. Catholic schools have a responsibility to the parishes that they serve, to work with the clergy to build Christ’s kingdom in their locality. Parishioners see our schools as belonging to them.

Structures. Service Level Agreements between Heads and the Schools Department provide specialist Catholic support for RE subject managers, head teachers and deputies with in-service training for effective teaching of RE. The appointment of Ian Mc Niff as Deputy Director of Schools for the Diocese will enhance the effectiveness of this teaching. A rigorous regime of Self Review and Evaluations gauges effectiveness of teaching, with external Diocesan-trained Validators scrutinising results.

Resources. Mary Jo said she was untroubled by issues of funding and finance, which were not fundamental to her work. The remit of her Department is to implement approved policies through energised commitment. Catholic education did of course attract a cost, and there would always be budget constraints, but resources did not, and would not, determine policies. Concern was expressed at the difficulties in recruiting Catholic teachers – particularly at Head and Deputy Head level. A problem here is the inability to accept candidates who are in irregular relationships, living a life-style which runs contrary to the Catholic ethos espoused.

24. At this point, Mary Jo asked Members to consider two questions:

1. What are our Catholic schools for – what is their purpose?
2. Who are our Catholic schools for – who has a right, who belongs?

Feedback from the general discussion included: In secondary schools, the reality is that a fair proportion of pupils are being dissuaded from practising their religion by the attitude of their peers who feel it is ‘uncool’. This was recognised, and no real solution offered itself, but all pupils would have liturgy; the level of Catholic knowledge was difficult to assess – certainly the material is available and much depends on teachers but the point was made that parents are a child’s first teachers – teaching begins at home; there is potential tension in teaching non-RCs and it is important to appreciate their faith development; irregular life-styles could more properly be regarded as ‘brokenness’ rather than sinfulness, and a shift in perspective was needed.

25. In drawing this session to an end, Nina thanked Mary Jo and Christine for their enthusiastic and instructive presentation.

26. Nina spoke about the Christian Music Festival to be held at St Cassian’s Retreat and Pastoral Centre, Kintbury, on 26 and 27 June 2004. Targetted at the age group 15 to 21, a huge amount of work had gone into making it lively, fun and meaningful and she had been requested by one of the organisers, Jocelyn Jones, to ask Members to take promotional material back with them to their Deaneries, Parishes and Schools and publicise the event – essentially it is a follow-up to the successful ‘Bournemouth Challenge’ of 18 months ago.

27. Nina broached the possibility, and desirability, of bringing forward the June Meeting of the PCDP because this day session has not proved popular in the past. Discussion also questioned whether it should be an over-night session and, because of the knock-on effect, whether the March slot should also be advanced. It was agreed to pencil in 28/29 January 2005 (in lieu of March 05), and to look at mid May (in lieu of the June slot).

Action: Executive Secretary

28. Nina stated that Christine McGrew had volunteered to fill the vacancy on the PCDP Executive Committee as an elected candidate; this was accepted.

29. Angela drew Members’ attention to ‘Listening 2004 - My Family, My Church’, this being an initiative to support family life. A ‘Diocesan Conversation’ will be held at Basingstoke on 16 October this year with Bishop Crispian and Bishop John Hine in attendance. Members were asked to take the literature back with them and raise the profile of the initiative in their Deaneries and Parishes.

30. Nicky called Members’ attention to the conference at Exeter University between 19 and 22 July 2004 on ‘Revealing God’s Word Today’. There will be over 40 Workshops, and the principal speaker will be Fr Ronald Rolheiser. Please take back to Deaneries and Parishes!

31. Francis Connolly mentioned that he serves on a Local Education Authority which had agreed to move to the 6 term year. He reported that recognition of the Easter festival would be maintained.

32. John O’Shea said that last year he, plus other people from his parish in Southampton, had been requested by the Bishop to attend a conference addressing the diverse and multi-cultural issues of present society. Much work has gone on, and he felt there was a need to share the results since the group had proposals to put before the Council. It was agreed therefore to slot this in as an item at the next PCDP meeting.

Action: Executive Secretary

33. Nina thanked delegates for their contributions and participation at the meeting and brought it to conclusion at 12 30, with delegates moving to sandwich lunch and dispersal.

Enclosure: Bishop Crispian’s text on the Diocesan Strategic Plan