Sunday, 11th March, 2001: On the Eve of my 35th Birthday, I make a personal committment to the Church's Authority and receive job prospects

The story above [ie. below, for blog readers!] must be completed now, but just to say at the beginning that this has been a hell of a week. Cathy woke me about 8:30 on Monday morning (I don’t usually sleep in that long, but I think the day before had wiped me!) to say that Eastern Regional Libraries were on the phone and wanted to make a time for an interview about the Branch Coordinator’s position at Montrose. We set the time for Wednesday at 1pm. Later that day, I received another phone call, this time from Mt Scopus College (a local Jewish school), about the Library Technician’s position there. We made an appointment for an interview on Tuesday at 12:30pm.

Then, in the post that day, I received two letters: one from Pastor DB and one from my District President.

The President's letter was a surprise. It was very short, but simply said:

“David, I am deeply disappointed in your bad mouthing of me. I have reports from two different events where this has happened in recent times. You are not helping anyone by such behaviour least of all yourself and ultimately you hurt our Lord. You might also find some more useful time in getting your email accessible.”

I was very surprised at this, and I immeadiately rang him (something he ought to have done for me when he heard such reports) to query him on it. The two occassions, he said, were at Zone Pastor’s meeting and at the Pastors and Wives get together last Friday. This I find remarkable--because first of all, others who were at the Zone meeting have no idea what he was talking about (unless they took the fact that I expressed disappointment with his revelation of my situation in the Pastor to Pastor newsletter as “bad mouthing” him), and secondly because the only people who were at the Pastors and Wives gathering that day were myself, Peter and Susie Holmes, and our hosts (A. and his wife), and P.'s wife. All of whom I would trust with my confidence and my life!

Yet the President's letter (actually a copy of an email he attempted to send me) has the time on the top “4:03pm Friday 2nd March”, which was less than two hours after this meeting. Who the source of this information was still remains a mystery. In any case, the whole episode was enough to make me feel like I was being “pushed” out of the LCA. Things were becoming decidedly unpleasant.

Pastor DB's letter was also disturbing.

In the wee small hours of Saturday morning at Vermont South,

Dear David,

I cannot let our ‘phone call be the last contact we had before next Friday. I humbly ask your forgiveness for speaking to you in anger, for judging your motives and actions presumptously, and for any hurt at all that I caused. There are many reasons why I spoke as I did. But, I’m not going to even try and excuse my behaviour. I simply beg your forgiveness.

David, I want to try and explain to you the depths of my reaction and feelings over you leaving our Church. You will remember that I was one of those who vigorously stood up for you in our final year at Seminary. We stood up as your classmates beside you and publically supported you against what we all regarded as unfair treatment following your vicarage. I did so because I believe that it was right, and because of my genuine affection for you.

I have defended you against those who have derided you and ridiculed you as a ‘liturgical purist’ and against the charge of being ‘too Catholic’. But much more than all this, what you said last Tuesday at Box Hill [regarding my marriage and inability to receive communion until an annulment is granted] has haunted my mind and my heart in the deepest possible way.

David, I cannot begin for one moment to appreciate what it must be like for you to face the rest of your life knowing that there will be no place for you at the Lord’s Table. The thought is too terrible. As I try to understand what you said, and what it means, it grips my heart like death.

As I search the Scriptures, I cannot see Christ in the scenario that you spoke about and which you are prepared to enter into. For the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), there was a place at the Lord’s Table. For the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8), there is a place at the Lord’s Table. For St Peter who on three occasions publicaly committed apostacy (John 18), there is a place at the Lord’s Table. For St Paul who perseucted the church and murdered St Stephen (Acts 7), there is a place at the Lord’s Table.

But for David Schütz who married in faith and good conscience, who divorced in shame and repentance, and who married again in faith, good conscience and repentance, there is no place at the Lord’s Table in Rome. As I read the Universal catechism there is no way that your first marriage can be seen as invalid. From that, I cannot image David Schütz without the Blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood, “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of all your sins.”

If this is the teaching of Christ’s true Church, through His supreme vicar on earth, then the Pharisees need no longer be scandalised, and they need no longer ask, “Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?” (Matthew 9), because plainly he doesn’t.

I fear that this burden will be greater than you can bear. I fear also for Cathy and you and your most beloved children. I share the same pastoral concern as the Universal Catechism:

"1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise."

David, please accept this letter, with all its faults, as a testament of the love that I hold for you as a dear brother in Christ. I don’t know what else to say. I am at a loss and I am very sad. We will perhaps share a most unlikely bond--we will both be prevented from sharing the Lord’s Table in Rome.

May our heavenly Father bless you, may Christ our Saviour be with you, may the Holy Spirit’s fellowship keep you from all danger. Amen.

Your brother in Christ,

DB+

I showed these letter to Cathy. She said that she agreed with it. This was my response to DB:

Dear DB,

I can get to you, even if you can't get through to me. Both you and District President appear to be having trouble getting through to my email, but I think it is a problem with the LCA's server, not mine, since I am receiving other people's emails.

First, may I begin by saying thank you for your letter. It has clearly shown for me the depth of your pastoral concern and love. I am honoured by this.

Secondly, yesterday's encounter was the work of God... [Here follows the story I related in the last entry on this blog]...

Finally, with regard to the issue of my marriage and communion.

I do not want to sound too certain or dogmatic on this point, because I am not. I am trying to work it through on so many planes--theological, spiritual and emotional--that I am far from thinking clearly on this. Emails can sound cold and hard sometimes, so I want you to realise that what I am writing now cuts very deep to the core. Furthermore the issue is complicated by the fact that it is actually two issues that coincide: a) the issue of communion, and b) the issue of divorce and remarriage.

Catholic practice and teaching here (and I mean not just Roman, but the whole history of the church) has acknowledged that there are situations when a person should not come to the sacrament, and when those in charge of administering the sacrament have the duty to advise someone that they would not receive it to their good if they did. These situations are usually to do with both faith and repentance for sin. In the latter case, a person who is committing a sin, but is not repentant of it, would be advised not to come to the sacrament.

With respect to divorce and remarriage, the unanimous teaching of the church has always been (according to the teaching of Christ) that anyone who does remarry after a divorce is entering a relationship that could be adulterous relationship. Now the Catholic church is doing its damnedest to uphold this witness--even if they probably could handle things better pastorally. I think it is fair to say that the Lutheran Church has capitulated to society on this one, in the name of being "forgiving" it has actually become permissive. Again, that is not a pastoral solution.

You are right when you describe the way things happened for me. I married in faith and good conscience, I divorced in shame and repentance, and I married again in faith, good conscience and repentance. The latter was only possible because at the time I fully believed that, having been forgiven for the sin of divorce, I was free in the sight of God and the Church to remarry. For this reason, I have been advised that my current marriage, though irregular, could not be viewed by the Catholic Church as a "grave" sin (ie. on the same level as adultery) because it was entered into with the understanding that I was free to remarry.

Yet in fact, I may not have been free to remarry (the jury is literally still out on that one). Here is where the LCA has got it wrong in the way it deals with divorce. We have given the impression that when a person repents for the breakdown of their marriage, and receives absolution, that that marriage is effectively dissolved, and the repentant and absolved sinner is free to remarry. But that is not the case, is it? That person still has a living spouse, and to enter into a new marriage would put one into a permanent situation of bigamy in the eyes of God. How can one who is living in a bigamous relationship (with whatever good intentions) be admitted to the sacrament? To compare it to another, perhaps more serious case: If a man were committing adultery, and his pastor knew about it, that pastor could not admit that man to communion until he had both repented of and abandoned the adulterous relationship.

Let's look at the situations you cited in your letter. The woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery were both expected to "go and sin no more". (Whether they were ever invited to the Lord's table is another matter of which we know nothing). Two people who were at the Lord's table, Peter and Paul, both repented of their sin, and were received with forgiveness. Even the tax collectors and publicans were called to repentance, and forgiveness given so that they could live a new way of life. But there cannot be absolution without the intention to put the repentance into practice by living a new and holy life.

Now, my marriage is, at least by current judgement, irregular. It is technically bigamous (I cannot bring myself to call it adulterous, although Christ's words would seem to indicate that). However, I am bound to Cathy by vows of love and faithfulness, which, as our wedding text said, I will never let leave me. I am bound in justice and righteousness to Cathy and to my children with whom God has blessed our marriage. I once intended to witness to the evil of divorce by remaining celibate for the rest of my life. Thank God that I did not keep to that resolve! O happy sin (as the hymn says) that led me to being a husband to the woman I love and a father to two beautiful daughters.

But now I fully intend to witness to the stand of the Church against the evil of divorce by living with the consequences of this decision and in due submission to the authority of God's word and church on this matter. The cost is great--as you say, I may never be able to receive the grace of God at the table of the Lord (at least until both our previous marriages are annulled, or death changes the equation one way or another). But I am not cut off from grace. I am baptised, I believe, and so I will be saved. I do not believe that I could be saved if, having recognised what I believe to be true in my deepest conscience, I went against it because I could not submit myself to it.

And here is an important point. You challenge the authority of Rome because you believe it misuses the office of the keys. Or to put it another way, because you do not agree with the way in which Rome exercises discipline, you are questioning whether it has the right to exercise such discipline. This does not follow. One must first investigate whether Rome's claim to authority is valid--did Christ give his authority to Peter and his successors to bind and loose or not? Evidently, I am convinced that he did. Having acknowledged this authority on the grounds of scripture and tradition, how could I then turn around and deny it by my refusal to submit to its teachings and discipline? What value authority, if I can choose to submit to it only when it gives me what I want?

This whole business is about lawful authority under Christ. I do not need someone to stroke my soul and tell me it is all alright if it isn't all alright. Can you disolve my first marriage? Can you tell me, with full authority, that my current marriage is regular and right in the sight of God? Or can you even tell me the opposite? You have declared my first marriage valid, how then can you declare my current marriage valid? What are you trying to say? That my first marriage has been disolved by an act of the state? Can it do that? after what Christ said about "let no-one separate"?

My only hope is to fully submit myself to Christ's Lordship and authority on the matter, and to do this, I must seek out those who exercise this authority. If they judge me to be free to remarry, I will accept their judgement. If they judge me not to have been free to enter into a new marriage relationship, I will accept their judgement on this too. I will never sever my marriage with Cathy--what? shall we sin all the more that grace may abound even more?--but I will live to the full the covenant of marriage with her that I should have lived with my first wife, and I will live a life of prayer and faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And I will go to every mass knowing that in this mass the body and blood of Christ is indeed being offered for my sin whether I commune or not.

There is probably so much here that you would say is not "rightly dividing law and gospel". But things are not always as black and white as "law" and "gospel". I am a broken, sinful human being, who never the less is justified through faith in Christ in baptism, and I live by the mercy of God. I do not demand that he change his law for me. It is enough to know that Christ has died for me, and that I will sit at God's table in eternity when I will be free from all brokenness, and all the grey stains of sin.

In the meantime, I trust that God is leading me, and that only if I turn back in fear from the race that is set before me will I fail to receive the promised reward.

David Schütz

This exchange of letters became an opportunity for Cathy and I to frankly discuss our marriage, our previous marriages, the question of how we were going to raise the children, and the matter of communion. There is much more to discuss yet, but we touched on several topics:

1) I reiterated that I was committed to my marriage to her. If the Tribunal decides that my first marriage was valid, then I will not regard myself any less married to Cathy, I will simply recognise that our marriage cannot be regarded as a sacramental marriage.

2) I will not continue to commune in the Lutheran church, even while I am awaiting a decision from the tribunal. Cathy was a bit taken aback by this. I think she thought that I would freely commune with her at St Paul's and that she would be able to receive communion with me in the Catholic Church. I tried to explain about "validity" of the sacrament, and how this was dependant upon the validity of the ordination of the celebrant.

3) I will not begrudge her or the church if the annulment is not granted, and I will live as a non-communing Catholic. I will regard God as having given me an inestimable blessing in Cathy and my children for which I will be ever thankful, even if I cannot have the privilege of receiving communion

4) It is natural that I should want to share my faith with my children, and so have them grow up with a love for the Catholic church. At the same time, I want them to grow up knowing the best from the Lutheran tradition also. I do not now want to set in concrete any promises such as "we will bring them up Catholic/Lutheran", because I believe that Cathy needs time to get to know the Catholic Church also. There is prejudice there that is not her fault, and she wants to learn more about this "new" faith of mine. Her feelings with regard to how the children are raised may change. For now, she is just struggling to come to terms with the fact that I include the Hail Mary with the Our Father and the Creed when I pray with Maddy.

On Tuesday, I wrote this letter to Fr [now Bishop] Anthony Fisher.

Dear Anthony,

This has been quite a week. I have my interview with Eastern Regional Libraries tomorrow (Wednesday), but today I also was interviewed for a position at Mt Scopus College in their primary school library.

Just before the interview, I went into St Scholastica's across the road, and lit a candle and prayed before the image of our Lady. I believe the interview went well, but I have heard nothing yet.

However, Fr Greg Pritchard surprised me by phoning to offer me the position of Music Coordinator for his parish (2 days a week, $10,000) as soon as I wanted it! I would have liked to have said "yes" straight away, but it will depend on what happens. Both these jobs I am being interviewed for are 3.5 to 4 days a week, so that would leave me time to take up Greg's proposal.

Please pray for me--a lot! It seems as if things could be falling into place for me just as I am feeling a little pressure from the LCA to leave. The Summit is this Friday too. Hopefully by Friday I will know the outcome of the interviews. It could be a day for celebration on Friday night! (not trying to count my chickens before they hatch).

Cathy and I have just had a long heart to heart about the nature of our former marriages and our committment to our current marriage in the light of the changing scene. This was a very constructive discussion. We are still trying to finalise a time when you can come for dinner.

God bless. See you soon.

David Schütz

Yesterday, I took Maddy to Mass at Our Lady’s (Ringwood - Fr Pritchard's parish) before going to her swimming lesson. Fr Paul was saying Mass, and Maddy was very good for a change.

Afterward, Fr Greg came to the playground where I was playing with Maddy. He was returning the summit papers that I had left behind at the Holmes’ last night.

We fell to talking about the Music Coordinator position, and he showed me the organ and the music collection. I realised that I really could do this, and moreover that I wanted to do it. He asked me if a May 1st starting date would be alright, and I said I thought it would be.

At that stage, I don’t think that I had really realised what I was doing, but during Maddy’s swim time, I realised that what I had decided to do was to take the job regardless, and seek part time work to fill in the rest of the time. I felt that this job would be important for three reasons:

1) It was the sort thing I was gifted at and enjoyed doing

2) It would give me a good background for future employment in a liturgical field in the Archdiocese

3) It would give me a meaningful place in a Catholic parish community

The more I thought about it, I realised that I didn’t want to do Holy Week at Knox/Frankston/Casey. Not only did I not have the physical energy for it, but emotionally I didn’t want to do it. I began to think more about Palm Sunday as a possible “last service” day, and taking Holy Week as a holiday. As I think about it now, I would like to make Easter the last time that I celebrate that feast as a Lutheran. I would like to receive communion one last time with Cathy, and then start anew the next week.

When I got home and went through the paper to look at what was on offer, and I realised that I didn’t really want to apply for any of the jobs there. I began what was a very up and down day for me--from being depressed about the fact that I may not have gotten either of the jobs that I had been interviewed for, to being excited at the fact that I had finally made the decision to pack it in, and set a date for it.

When Cathy came home, I suggested to her my idea, and told her that I had definitely decided to do the job at Our Lady’s. She was concerned that I was swapping one “every Sunday” job for another, so I rang Greg to clarify with him the expectations. Greg said that he envisaged 2 weekends in four being the usual, depending on the roster, of which I was in charge. So that settled that. I decided to let the school component of the job rest for a while, but I need to follow that up soon with the principal.

This morning I went to church at Our Saviour's to discover that they had begun thinking in terms of Palm Sunday as being the last service also, and had begun making other arrangements for Holy Week and Easter. They have decided now that I was able to confirm this to have a farewell BBQ, inviting Frankston and Casey people also, the night before, on the 7th of April.

But the really pleasant surprise is that have offered the Manse to us rent-free until the end of the financial year. They intend to sell it, to pay off some of their debt on the church. The district is also cutting $60k from the debt (basically the interest of the last 10 years), as long as the congregation continues with its pay-back scheme to which it has committed itself. So everything is turning out fine there as well. The rent-free offer will be worth about two or three thousand dollars to Cathy and I and give us a chance to save up for the shift. It also gives us a definite date to work towards.

Sunday, 4th March, 2001: In which the consequences of my decision begin to bite

On Friday night I had a long, interesting, but in the end, disappointing and saddening discussion with Pastor DB on the phone. I had rung him to let him know that I was sending through the service outline for Knox for Sunday (today – he is taking the service there today while I go down to Casey and Frankston). Then we got into a discussion regarding what to expect from Friday’s summit, and finally we got into a discussion of the issues that are at stake. We talked from about 9:30pm to just after midnight.

During the phone call, he told me that in his opinion I should not be currently exercising my ministry, since I believe that the ministry of the Lutheran Church has no validity. He also criticized the way in which I made my resignation, and the fact that I am continuing to work as a Lutheran pastor, when everyone knows that I have already decided to join the Catholic Church. I became very angry at this point and said that I was completing this three month period in obedience to the President and at the express request of my congregation. At the same time, this was my employment and I currently had no other economic option for supporting my family. Furthermore I pointed out that I had not wanted my desire to enter the Catholic Church to be generally known, but that the President himself had broken confidence and made it known.

But when I got to the point that I had first concluded that I would need to become a Catholic 11 months ago, he said “I wish you hadn’t told me that--you have just fallen in my estimation”--as if this was a conclusion that could be acted upon as suddenly as it was made! When I defended my current ministry on the basis that I was doing what was required of a Lutheran Pastor, he then brought up the subject of the sermon I gave in my parish last Reformation Day (October last year—I had sent him a copy at the time). He said he had never intended to tell me this, but he was very disappointed at with it. It was, he said, an “historical lecture defending the Catholic Church” rather than preaching the gospel, and that I had misused the pulpit.

I hardly slept that night. I was so angry at what I took to be his unfair treatment of me. The next day I sent him this email:

Here is the service order.

With regard to last night's phone conversation, I apologise for keeping you up so late and for pushing the issue so far. We should have terminated the call at the first instance, and we would both have left it with a much higher regard for one another than I now fear we have reached.

Several points I feel I should make now, with the reflection of half the night behind me.

1) I obviously believe in some way that the ministry I am now exercising is "valid", or I wouldn't be doing it.

Your assertion that I do not consider what I am doing "valid" and that I am just "playing church" was wide of the mark. The word "valid" holds a certain meaning for me which I do not think it means for you, so we misunderstood each other when you asked whether I consider my current ministry "valid" and I said "no". I do consider my ministry as a Lutheran pastor to be valid for the remainder of the period between now and when I undertake my "leave of absence." I also consider it "efficacious". I consider it to be both these things on the basis of a) the external word of God, b) the external call of the LCA through its president and the congregations, and c) because this ministry is received in faith by the members of my congregations.

You cannot charge me with dishonesty or a lack of integrity in what I am doing. In a perfect world, one would naturally, having made a decision to change denominational allegiance, immediately retire from the one and enter into the other. In a slightly less than perfect world, in which such decisions (even once made) need time to grow and take time to act upon, one would immediately retire and go into "retreat" for the period between the moment a decision is first formed in one’s mind until the time when one can fully enter into the new reality.

But I am living in a far from perfect world, and I am a far from perfect person. The decision I made 11 months ago needed a great deal of thinking and praying through. It needed talking with colleagues (such as yourself), a testing of the waters, and a re-testing. It needed investigation. Whatever was in my heart needed to be tested against objective reality. In this time of testing, I had to continue my ministry, whatever I thought of it.

In a word, I was called to be faithful--to lash myself to the wheel, and do the job that God had given me to do "while it was day", whatever I was beginning to think of it. It may seem incidental to you that in all this I had to act as a married man with a young family to support, or that you may think that on this basis I was "just in the job for the money", but this would be very unjust--and unpastoral.

I had to weigh up all sides of the decision. I couldn't just "drop everything" and follow my hearts desire because that would have been unjust to my family. When the fulness of time came, and it came before I was ready for it, but I recognise the hand of God in that, I did make the decision to resign. I made this decision freely. The President did not force me to make it. It was a decision between the call to Hope Valley that would have required me to affirm my Lutheran ministry, and resignation. The only thing I could do with integrity was resign.

So I did resign, and I did it in accordance with the directions the President gave me. I intentionally did not go into the issues behind my resignation, because I knew this would cause insurmountable pastoral problems of the sort you have identified. Unfortunately, the President himself--without my permission--chose to tell all the pastors in the Victorian District of my issue. Once this matter was out in the public arena, there was no way it could be stopped. It was better that I told my congregations myself before they heard on the grape vine.

In all this, I don't know how I could have acted with greater integrity toward either my congregations, the LCA, my president, my family, my self and my God. I feel it is grossly unjust of you to lay upon me the burden of instant cessation of all pastoral duties. This is taking things in such a black and white way, when indeed, it is all a messy gray. I am neither at A nor at B, but in a wide chasm or limbo between the two. I became angry on the phone with you because you were not taking into account the reality of my situation. You were dealing with me as a theory, a theological problem, and not as a real human being in a real human situation. You were seeing one side of the story only. Besides all this, I AM resigning. What more can you truly want from me? What other blood do you want to squeeze from a body that is already almost fully drained?

2) My reformation sermon.

Your assertion that in the last 12 months I have been acting as something of an undercover agent for the Roman church in the Lutheran church is unjust. Yes, of course, you can see in my preaching and ministry over the last 12 months an attempt to work out my inner struggles. It is partly because I have realised I was doing this that I have accepted resignation, when many people urged me to continue on in my ministry and work it out with my hand to the plough.

But can't you see in that Reformation Day sermon a sincere attempt to find a Lutheran approach to the problem of catholicity? This may not be obvious to you, but to me I can clearly see elements of that sermon that I could not affirm as a Catholic because I was preaching as a Lutheran. Yet at that time I was preaching what I believed to be the truth.

You say that I wasn't rightly dividing Law and Gospel. Well, fine, you have every right to say that. You say that I wasn't preaching Christ. Well, fine, you have every right to that opinion too. Perhaps all this proves is that I am perfectly suited for a Church which, in the opinion of many Lutheran theologians, errs in the fact that it doesn't rightly divide Law and Gospel and doesn't preach Christ.

I preached the sermon that I did then because a) I believed it to be true, b) I believed it to be God's word for that situation, c) I believed it had to be said, d) I was confronting what I regarded to be a sin in the Lutheran church, namely, an uncharitable celebration of Reformation Day that attacked the "straw man" of the Catholic Church, when Catholics are and should be regarded as brothers and sisters in Christ. Now this probably does not justify me in your eyes, and fair enough. I say only that I am glad you are not my eternal judge.

My spiritual director warned me that there would be a change of relationship between me and others. I have strongly attempted to avoid this on my part. But I have already noticed it happening. First with one of my elders, and now with you. I guess I should expect this and I can be thankful that this problem is not more widespread than it currently is. But I am disappointed that you felt you had to say the things you did on the phone last night. You were kicking a man who was already down. I don't know about rightly dividing law and gospel, but I thought a part of that doctrine requires, not only in preaching, but in pastoral relationships, to recognise when someone needs the law and when someone needs the gospel. Right at this time, I am grasping for every bit of gospel I can get my hands on. Only the gospel can enable me to complete my ministry and make the transition that lies ahead of me. I feel like a drowning man--I am getting weary of the long swim until my resignation becomes final and I am trying to keep my head about water. What I need now is help to reach the finishing line, not someone dragging me under just a few metres from the end of the race.

David

That email expresses well the emotion that I was feeling at the time. I then went on an all day ride with my motorcycle club--for the first time in about three months--and got it all out of my system. Or so I thought. I woke this morning thinking to myself, “How can I celebrate the Eucharist with this ill will toward DB on my heart?” Then God stepped in.

I was running close to schedule on this morning. At 8:10am, I went down to the Knox Church office with my sermon and service order on my floppy disk to print it out on the office computer. I still needed to buy the bread for the service at Casey. I waited for the computer to boot up (a long process down there), put in my disk, went to print it off and it said "Disk error". I could not access my document, so I had to rush home, copy it off again onto a new disk, and back down to print it out (after rebooting the machine). This time it began printing out, so I rushed down to the shop to buy a roll of bread, and got back to find the machine had stalled after one page saying "Disk error". By this time it was 8:35am and I had to be at Casey by 9am, so I rang ahead to tell them I would be late. I put the phone down, grabbed my gear (I realised I would have to preach ex corde and minus manuscriptus), and as I was heading out of the door it suddenly occurred to me that if I didn't hurry up, I would run into DB arriving to take conduct the service here.

I didn't feel in the emotional state to be able to handle a meeting at that point. I turned for the car, and there he was, getting out of his car. I couldn't just drive away--that would have been utterly unforgivable, so I went to him to shake hands and wish him God's blessings for the Eucharist. But he wouldn't let go of my hand, and he told me he had been trying to send me a letter via email which he had written the night before at 3am. He couldn’t get it through, so he had posted it. As he was talking I was thinking "I want to hug this man just to show him that I do love him and I don't hate him"--but I didn't have the guts. Then suddenly he hugged me, and planted a great kiss on my cheek. That he did have the guts is something that I am very grateful for. That "holy kiss" brought tears to my eyes. When I got into the car and it suddenly occurred to me that without all that hoo-hah with the computer I would have missed him. I began to cry and I think I cried half the way to Berwick.

Thursday, 1st March 2001: In which the President calls a "Summit" to discuss our cases, I prepare my case, & receive a letter from my godmother

I am losing enthusiasm for this journal. The reason, I think, is that I have few things I still need to work through. Writing has been for me not so much a way of recording the journey, as of actually making the journey. Now, although much is happening, and there is much that someone in the future would probably be interested in (eg. How did he go about telling everyone, and what were their reactions), yet little is happening in the sense of my journey. It is as if I have come to a landing half-way along the stairway, or the lift has become stuck between floors, and there is little to do but to sit and wait it out. I am waiting for my annulment. I am waiting for a job. I am waiting for my resignation to take effect. I am simply waiting...

In the mean time, the District President has summoned a ‘Diet’ to meet next Friday. Yesterday he emailed all Victorian pastors with the following email:

Dear Brethren,

I am convening a summit for Friday the 9th March at St. Pauls Box Hill from 10.00am - 3.00pm.

The purpose of the Summit is to clarify and discuss the doctrinal concerns of the brethren David Schutz, Peter Holmes and [P.]. To that end I am asking David, Peter and [P.] to prepare an A4 (1 page) specifying the concerns that are troubling you. I am further asking that [Pastors PK, DB and GW] prepare an A4 (1 page) response to David, [P.] and Peter. NB. David, [P.] and Peter send your statement to [PK] (David), [DB]([P.]) and [GW] (Peter) by Tuesday of next week at the latest and then kindly email it to all of the brethren listed above.

...I have invited the people named above for specific reasons. They are either pastors on DCC, Zone Counsellors, colleagues in ministry (team ministry, class mates) or they have been asked to fulfill a specific role in regard to each of the brethren. I have also been conscious of the need to try and avoid overpowering the brethren with concerns. If I have overlooked someone who falls into one of the above categories please contact me.

Those of you not specifically involved please use a proportion of your day on the Friday for specific prayer for those attending the summit. I urge all of you to make this matter a matter of prayerful concern in the days leading up to the summit and beyond it.

He followed this up with a second email:

Dear Brothers,

If you re-read my email on this matter you will note that I sent an invite to 21people and then sent a copy to all of you. The 21 were [RA, AB, DB, PG, PH, JH, AH, Holmes, VK, PK, GL, SM, P., SP, GS, CS, Schutz, DS, GS, GW and JW].

I did say that if I have overlooked anyone according to the criteria for invitation in email, please let me know and I will invite. If someone else would very much like to be there please let me know.

I also called the rest of you to prayer.

We got a foretaste of what it this "Diet of Box Hill" would be like when Zone Pastor’s conference met on Tuesday. I had asked for time to tell the brethren what was happening, and Peter [Holmes] and P. were invited to join in. Most people are stunned at “how far” I have “gone”.

Although by now all these questions are simply academic for me, since I have committed myself to the path that I am on, I have drafted the following questions for the Summit:

1) In ecumenical theology, two ecclesiologies are possible: 1) The true Church of Christ on earth is a visible reality which is manifested and recognised by certain “marks” and is to be identified with a particular denomination to the extent that it preserves these “marks” in their fullness/purity; or 2) the true Church of Christ is an invisible reality that consists of the spiritual communion of true believers who are known only to God, and who may be found in any denomination, or indeed, even beyond the bounds of organised Christianity. I do not believe the second option to be valid: the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is incarnate (he is not “the invisible man”). It is my understanding that historically the Lutheran Church (and even more specifically, the LCA) has held the former definition, and has regarded itself to be the true church because it alone has perfectly preserved the true Word and Sacraments. For this reason, we have been wary of entering into communion other churches, because of a perceived lack of purity in the preservation of these marks. If so, is the Lutheran Church not claiming to be the one holy catholic church, and, if so, how is this claim to be justified?

2) The Lutheran Church holds that the true church is present wherever the Word and Sacraments (the liturgy of the church) are celebrated. If the church does not have an organic reality apart from the event of the celebration of the liturgy, what must we say of our church when it abandons on a large scale the very liturgy that is supposed to bring it into existence?

3) What is the locus of Christ’s authority in the Lutheran Church? Who can claim to be the “you” in Luke 10:16 today and on what grounds? How is this authority validated, ie. how is it communicated incarnationally from Christ himself? Whether authority is claimed by the presidents, the pastors conferance, the synod, the local congregation, the confessions, the Theses of Agreement or the theologians of the church, on what grounds would we regard such authority to be validated?

4) When the LCA came into existence, the first Synod adopted a doctrinal position that said the ordination of men only was “binding upon all Christendom”. 35 years later, the same institution held a vote which potentially could have overthrown this “binding” practice. Apart from the question as to whether the truth can be determined by a vote, did this action not invalidate the authority of Synod itself? For while making doctrinal pronouncements which are binding for the LCA, it does not consider these statements to be binding upon itself for its future confession of faith. Hence no doctrine, currently considered “binding” by the church, can be safe from revision or rejection by the Synod in the future.

5) I do not believe the Lutheran Church will ever reach agreement on the doctrine of the ministry, since there is an inherant ambiguity in the Lutheran tradition on the matter of whether the authority of the ministry comes from ‘above’ or ‘below’ (popularly refered to as a ‘high’ and ‘low’ view of the ministry). GL’s paper at our last Pastors Conference demonstrated the difficulty in trying to resolve this ambiguity. Is there any way of resolving these tensions without ultimately chosing either between a fully catholic understanding of orders or congregationalism?

6) The LCA regards the external validation of the call by the church to be essential to the ordained ministry, for it is by this external validation that authority to exercise the ministry is confered from those who already have it (understanding that one cannot exercise the office without the authority to do so, and that only those who have the authority can confer it upon others). Although the Augsburg Confession recognises the authority of the episcopate (CA 28), the 16th Century saw a radical break in the continuity of the orders when the bishops of the church did not validate Lutheran ordinations. How then can we consider the ministry of the Lutheran Church to be validly authorised?

7) The historic episcopate and episcopal succession has, since the very beginning of the church, been regarded as essential to the church, since by this succession a tangible continuity of authority has been maintained with the apostles who were first commissioned by Christ. The LCA does not have bishops and cannot create an episcopate simply by giving them authority ‘from below’ since such authority must be given by Christ (ie. ‘from above’). Is it not therefore clear that we lack one of the essential marks of the church, and that this ‘lack’ cannot be repaired?

8) Some Lutheran theologians and pastors have claimed that the Lutheran Church is an “evangelical catholic” church. On what grounds can the Lutheran Church of Australia claim to be “catholic”? Is it even possible to reach a clear agreement on what it means to be “catholic” if communion with the bishop of Rome is not included in that definition?

9) Sasse: “Gentlmen, if there were no Lutheran Church, where would you go? You would go back to Rome. But why go back to Rome? Is it not full of evils? Yes, but they have preserved the sacraments.” Given the priority of the Roman Catholic Church (ie. it was there first--we broke away from it, not vice versa, despite the old “Luther never wanted to start a new church” line), Lutherans are guilty of committing the sin of schism by continuing to separate themselves from the Roman communion. The evil of schism may be justified if it is undertaken in order to avoid a greater evil, namely, apostacy from the catholic faith. Yet it is evident from the bi-lateral dialogues and agreed statements, and from Rome’s own official documents, that the Roman church has remained faithful to the catholic faith, when many other churches, Lutheran churches included, have apostasised. Rome has not only remained faithful in the face of contemporary attacks upon the ordained ministry, the inerrancy of scripture and the sanctity of life and marriage from liberalism and feminism, it has recently proven its orthodoxy in such documents as the Joint Declaration on Justification and the declaration Dominus Jesus. Are the continuing differences between Lutheran and Roman Christians so serious as to continue to justify schism?

10) “Only the unity of the Church’s faith and her authority, which is binding on each member, assures us that we are not following human opinions and adhering to self-made party groupings but that we belong to the Lord and are obeying him.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. How does a Lutheran answer this statement?

I was talking to AB on the phone today (I also spent about an hour talking this morning to Pastor RT, a cousin of my mother-in-law who is preparing stuff for me for the Worship Resources--and I think this primed me up for the chat with A.), and I realised just how much conscience has played a part in what I am doing. If I could have gone any other way than I have and still been true to my conscience, I would have taken it. I was a bit stunned at a letter I received from aunt and godmother yesterday. It read as follows:

To dear David and Cathy,

You have been much in our thoughts and prayers in recent weeks. While we continue to disagree with just about everything in your rationale for the direction you have chosen, David, we hope that, ‘ere long, your theological turmoil will be replaced with peace. While we continue to believe that you are not acting wisely but makng your own and Cathy’s life very difficult, we want you to know we love you both and will be here to walk with you on the journey. In the final analysis, those of us who lvie under the thoelogy of the cross are called to suffer with and for eachother. We wish you well in the weeks ahead, as you look for a job and another place to live. You continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. Please keep in touch.

God bless,

Why should I find this letter disturbing? After all, Cathy read it as very supportive. The fact is, I think, that I feel uncomfortable with the notion that I have simply “chosen” a direction on the basis of a “theological rationale”. There is nothing “rational” about this (although I will admit that originally the questions were primarily intellectual and theological)! In the end, it has become such a matter of conscience and of faith and of integrity, that I could do no other. If this is what Martin Luther felt when he stood before the Diet of Worms, then I know just what he meant. He was personally convinced of the truth of his position, and he declared that he could not budge from it even if he wanted to. I feel much the same way. How I wish I had been able to accept the call to Hope Valley! There is still a little bit of me that pipes up from time to time and says “If JW turns the call down, you could say you want to be reconsidered!” But of course that bridge has now been definitively burned. There is no going back. There is, in fact, no going anywhere but forward.

And the fact of the matter is that the way forward may indeed be the way to the goal that God is leading me, and to turn back would be to turn away from the very destiny that he has laid out for me. Yet he is only revealing one step at a time--literally. I feel like I am walking across a chasm on an invisible bridge: stepping out into a nothingness that only becomes visible stone beneath my foot just as I am putting it down and shifting my weight onto it, such that I need to trust and to place my life into the decision to take each step. The stone bridge may not materialise, and I may fall forward into the chasm. But so far, the stone has been there, carrying me on. To use a more biblical picture--it is like stepping out of the boat, and walking on the water towards Jesus. I have to keep my eyes focused on the goal, and step out in trust.

And it may all come out right. I may get my annulment. Cathy may eventually get her application in and she might get her annulment. I might then be received into the church. I might get a job in the Church. I might even be considered for ordination. Then how wonderful it will all be! All that my heart desires may yet be given to me.

But of course, it might be the direct opposite. I might not get my annulment. There might never be a job for me in the church. I might never be received into the Catholic church. Trying to raise our children when Cathy and I belong to two different churches may be a disaster. I may be reduced to working in a factory somewhere. Then what will it all have been for? For my conscience and for my integrity and for my witness to the truth. And I will have made myself a martyr without any recognition of the effort it cost me. This is the worst of it. I and all I am doing may simply be ignored and forgotten.

Yet here the words of Christ from yesterday’s Ash Wednesday gospel ring in my ears: Do not do your works of righteousness before men, for if you do, you will have recieved all your reward. I have to be certain I am not doing this for fame or notoriety. If in the end, it goes as I have said in the paragraph above, and not as in the paragraph above that, then I will have done my duty and only my duty as a servant. And as in one of Jesus parables, does a slave expect to be praised for doing his duty?

I think I will stop now. Cathy is talking on the phone still, and I would like to pray.

Saturday, 24th February 2001: In which I talk to Fr Anthony about my annulment application, and begin reading the Catechism

Things are preceding slowly at the moment. I have had no “bites”--not even “nibbles”--from the job market, but I am remaining hopeful. Not getting a job before May is now my biggest worry. Not much of a worry, though... I had an interview with Library Locums [an agency for placing librarians on temp contracts] on Wednesday, and I remain hopeful of something coming up in that department sooner or later. In the mean time, I continue applying for jobs. There was nothing in this morning’s paper however, and nothing new on the internet either.

I saw Fr Anthony yesterday. It was good to see him again. He is concerned that nothing much seems to be happening with Cathy’s application for annulment, and we discussed things we could do to make it easier for Cathy. Two suggestions: first, we will have Anthony around to dinner soon so that he can meet Cathy; second, I will try to make it possible for Cathy to take [baby] Mia and herself off somewhere for two or three days so that she can make a start on her application. I have brought both of these suggestions to Cathy, and she was quite agreeable to both.

I said to Anthony that I really wasn’t worried about Cathy’s application being in straight away. Before long I will know the outcome of my own application, and then, if it is negative there will be no point in Cathy applying. Anthony agreed. Second, I said that if I get a positive answer then the delay in Cathy’s annulment will not be a great concern to me, since I have valued the time that God has given me to fully consider what I am doing. Anthony was not so agreeable on this point. He said, with some emphasis, “I want to give you the Eucharist”. This was very gratifying, as it seems that there is no doubt about my convictions at least from his (their) side. Peter [Holmes], on the other hand, has been told that they want him to test his decision a little more.

I raised again my supreme annoyance at the generosity of the Holy See in recognising Mormon baptism [this was still a disputed issue at this point in 2001]. I even asked (half joking) if there was a chance I might get an audience with the Holy Father when he comes out (if he comes out) later in the year, and make a personal appeal to him. Anthony said that he needs to cure me from this Lutheran “voluntarism” (a new term for me) that makes us think that the saying of something can make it so, and that the Pope has the power to make something so which is, in reality, not so. Fair enough, of course. I knew that.

I also said that I have no doubt that Cathy’s annulment will be granted if mine is. Anthony, on the bare evidence he has, agreed.

We talked a little about “grave” and “venial” sin--a distinction that I have not been used to making, and the reasons for this distinction. Anthony compared our relationship to God like a marriage relationship, where there are some offences that fundamentally threaten the relationship, while there are others that, while making the relationship rocky and difficult, do not fundamentally do so. This made sense.

We discussed also whether or not my remarriage was a grave sin. Anthony said that on the evidence he has, he would not consider it so, since at the time of marrying, neither Cathy nor I had any notion that we were not free to marry, nor did we think that what we were actually doing was contracting a bigamous marriage in contradiction of God’s law.

However, the discussion made me very aware that there are grave sins that I have committed that do need confession and absolution (I don’t think Anthony believed this, and I didn’t go into details with him since he is not my confessor--nor probably ever will be), and so towards the end, I asked him if there was any possibility of my being admitted to the sacrament of confession even though I have not been confirmed nor admitted to communion. He said that it may be possible--in the same way that a new convert usually will receive the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving communion, and he will check this out with his canonist friends.

Anthony has encouraged me to hope to attain to a life of holiness, and I will sincerely try to do this.

I have realised that a certain “schizophrenia” has characterised my Lutheran/Catholic life. While this has begun to be resolved, there is another schizophrenia -- that of hardened sinner and sanctified saint -- which is even more urgent to be overcome.

I have now received a copy of the Catechism, and am working my way through it. This has been made more difficult by the fact that I have one of the early translations that needs all the corrections done. I did it once with pen--but it looks very untidy, so now I am downloading the revised sections from the net, and will cut and paste them into my copy. It’s one way of getting to know the contents, at least!!!

In preparing my sermon on the Transfiguration for tomorrow, I have used a lot of material from the Catechism. Nothing that is remotely “un-Lutheran”, of course, but I have discovered that there is a good deal of excellent exegesis in the Catechism that is really useful.

I rang the pastor who works as a counsellor in my parish yesterday to tell him of what was happening, since Cathy would like to use him as a witness. I also talked to [a friend] whose marriage I will be celebrating in a month or so on the phone about my decision today. I ran into [some aquaintances] from the Moorabbin parish at the joint regional service at Casey last Sunday, and they were quite surprised by my decision. [One dear old lady] from Casey though is quite convinced that I am doing the right thing. “I knew all along”, she said! I am afraid though that this will just convince her that the Lutheran Church has nothing in common with the Catholic Church. Probably she is right after all... It is strange now--I can agree with those Lutherans who want to ordain women, and who want to be anti-Catholic, because I see this now as a perfectly valid living out of some aspects of the Lutheran creed.

Thursday 15th February, 2001: In which it is all in the open

There are now no more secrets.

At tonight’s open meeting of the church council and elders of the Knox congregation, I told them everything about my journey to the point where I am at the moment. It was a difficult thing to do. I told them that although I would have liked to have kept the reasons for my resignation personal, to talk about only in private with those who would like to know, that the District President's email to the pastors has put this into the public arena, and that they would hear from someone else if not from me.

There was some shock, I think. [X] was the first to speak, saying that no-one should really be surprised given what I had been preaching over recent months. [X2] reacted very much according to his experience of the Catholic Church in South American—sprouting out some very negative stuff. [X3, an elder] had had some warning, so she was a rather moderating influence for a change. So was [X4], although she may have already known, since I had a very frank discussion with her husband up at Martin Luther Homes last week (he had guessed what it was all about). [X5] said she would follow me wherever I went—I hope she wasn’t serious! [X6, another elder] expressed some concern that now he did not know what to do—and he would have to consider worshipping elsewhere until such time as I had completed my ministry at Knox.

There was some discussion regarding the three month period until the conclusion of my ministry at Knox, some thinking it would be best if I went straight away rather than dragging it out. I assured everyone that I would continue to be bound by my ordination vows in the conduct of my ministry, just as I always have been. In fact, my sermons and teaching will probably be less controversial than before. Some expressed disappointment at this!

It was really hard to tell them, and now I cannot really believe that I have. Can everything that I have held so close to my heart for so long really now be public knowledge? How do I conduct my ministry now, knowing that they know what I really am? Never have I been so honest about my Catholic faith. I feel good about it—but also scared, because this drives a very real wedge between me and the congregation.

Yesterday I met for our usual Wednesday session with Peter Holmes and P., but this time at the Doncaster manse, since Peter was looking after his two children while Suzie was on a three day retreat. I challenged P. up front for not objecting to the District President's draft of his “Pastor to Pastor” letter. P. said that he was perfectly happy with the proposed approach. He said “He has treated me as I deserve”, to which I mumbled “You must be a dog then...”.

Someone asked me tonight if I felt betrayed by the President—and yes, I think I do (not for the first time either!). Still, P. is now talking a very different tune. He wants to prepare some statement or do some ground work before the “forum” (or “Diet of Worms” as Pete calls it), and said: “We’re all in this together.” That certainly is a different approach to the one he has taken so far. And he hasn’t even met with Fisher yet. This time it was us who had to tell him that we are all coming at this from different ways (Peter: What is truth; Me: Historical continuity; P.: realism vs nominalism), and with different consequences.

Last night, I had a phone call from Pastor BA [himself a convert to Lutheranism from Presbyterianism]. It was hard to tell this dear, sainted father in the faith, under whose hands I was ordained to the office of the ministry, my reasons for leaving. He said that he had once considered Rome as a student, and also that he was very distressed by the LCA’s current situation, but still he could not imagine going to Rome. He feels very strongly the injustices of Rome over against the protestant martyrs. I didn’t raise with him the issue of those who were Catholic martyrs under Henry and Elizabeth...

Then this afternoon, Father Greg Pritchard invited Peter and me to have dinner with him and with his new assistant priest, Father Paul, who is a convert from Anglicanism. This was a delightful occasion, and I especially valued exploring with Greg the ramifications of being a divorced and remarried Catholic for parish life. I appreciate the care that Greg is showing toward us.

So now it is almost midnight again. I am tired. I have to go and wake Cathy up—she was putting Maddy to bed, and is probably asleep herself as usual. I am aware that there are great gaps here in my journal, and that I have not written down all that has been said (eg. at today’s luncheon). But, like St John, I feel that if I wrote everything the whole world could not contain it.

One thing I do need to say is that I find it hard to take a starting point for my story when I need to give it, and furthermore, that I find just about impossible to come up with a single statement of why I have decided in favour of the authority of Rome over against the authority of the Lutheran Church. The argument, once started however, easily rolls on. Again, it is a problem with starting points.

Tuesday, 13th February, 2001: In which My District President Broadcasts My Confidences to All and Sundry

Although the last two weeks have been momentous in terms of my journey, I have not been in the frame of mind to enter much into my journal. As I have said, I spent the past week in peace. Very significant was a meeting last Thursday with the Casey congregation where I was clear and open about my reasons for resignation. They seemed to need to know this, so that they could come to terms with my decision. They were quite accepting. I am hoping for a similar reaction from a congregational meeting at Knox this Thursday.

In the mean time, my district president issued the following in his “Pastor to Pastor” newsletter yesterday:

Omnium Gatherum

Many of you will have heard directly from David Schutz that he has resigned as pastor of the Knox, Frankston and Casey parish (effective around May) and is applying to the LCA for 2 years leave of Absence. I am deeply saddened by this decision and in particular by the reasons that occasion it. David wrote:

I have growing doubts about my interior call to the ministry of the Lutheran Church. These doubts have made it increasingly difficult for me to function as a public representative of the LCA.

David will be seeking other employment and using the time to fully explore the issue enumerated above. Bound up with this issue is the possible renunciation of membership in the LCA and the joining of the Roman Catholic Church. [My emphasis--I considered this more or less confidential information] I urge your prayers for David, Cathy and their children.

I am also in discussion with two other brothers: [Here he names the person I have referred to in this journal as "P."] and Peter Holmes who have similar concerns to David. Those concerns revolve around the question of Authority. At the recent meeting of the Pastors of DCC, endorsement was given to my proposal to appoint pastoral advisors/carers to each of these men (that also includes David and Cathy). I am also exploring the possibility of a forum of pastors where these concerns can be aired among us in a very focused way. I urge your prayers also for ["P."] and Peter and their families.

John Wilksch [my father's cousin, then pastor at Dandenong] has been called to Hope Valley Homes (Adelaide) as an associate pastor with John Hartwich in aged care ministry....

I was very disappointed with this. Cathy was actually angry, and rang her own pastor to get it all of her chest this morning (since the president has appointed him as our ‘pastoral carer’, she thought she would let him have it!). I sent a copy of the president's email to Anthony Fisher with the following comments:

I am rather disappointed with [my district president] for the following reasons:

1) He here expresses nothing but disappointment in my decision. When I last talked to him, he said he also felt joy that I had decided to affirm my faith in the Catholic Church.

2) He correctly quoted from my circular letter the only reason I have publically given for seeking leave of absence. I invited anyone who wanted to know more to contact me personally. Many have done so, and I have been as frank with them as the situation demanded. I think he rather overstepped the mark by publically stating the reasons I gave him in confidence.

3) He put a negative spin on my decision by saying that I was considering "renouncing" the LCA--I may be leaving it, but I wouldn't have used the word "renounce".

4) He included [P.] and Peter in this. Peter is a long way from being ready for his questions to be public knowledge, and [P.] won't even admit to himself that he is thinking about becoming Catholic, let alone anyone else.

5) He has decided on a process without consulting any of us; and appointed "pastoral carers", not only for ourselves, but for our wives as well, again, without any consultation.

I also understand that he may have contacted George [Pell] asking him to tell his priests to maintain their distance from us. If he has done this, I take it as a personal affront.

I am disappointed, but I really feel for [P.] and Peter. I am already as good as out of it. Please pray for us.

Peter and Susie were very upset over this. The District President is demanding that they jump through all sorts of hoops. I do not understand why I was spared all this.

It just so happened, that today I was on a scheduled retreat with the President and five other pastors. I was feeling ill at ease all day, probably due to the President's letter of the night before, but I shared my “emotional journey” rather than “theological journey” with the brothers towards the end of the day.

I also took the president to task privately during lunch time re his comments in the newsletter. Apparently P. was shown these comments during his interview yesterday and did not object. I am a bit annoyed at P., although I know I shouldn’t be. But he has walked with us so far along this journey, but now appears to be turning back at the last minute. And how could he not have realised, seeing the President's letter, that those comments would cause heartache for Peter and me?

The President tried to use the image of “wandering in wilderness” for me with the brothers today. I corrected him and said I prefered to use the “Abraham” image--in the desert maybe, but not aimlessly wandering. He still seems to think, though, that I will come back to the Lutheran fold. He must be kidding! It would require such an about face...

On the way home, I was thinking about the fact that I may never be received into the Catholic Church (because of my marital status). Then, with the district president's wilderness image in mind, I came to thinking about Moses--a member of God’s people, leading them right up to the promised land, but not being allowed to go in himself, instead only viewing it from the top of Mt Nebo.

Wednesday, February 7th, 2001: In which I resign from my Parish and Positions

The last week has been one of most significant in my life. Wednesday week ago (January 28th) I met with the District President to determine a strategy for the way forward. He advised me that I should give notice of my intent to take leave of absence this Sunday.

So, on Sunday 4th of February, the following letter was read out at Knox and Frankston:

From Pastor David, to my brothers and sisters in Christ at Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church: Grace and Peace to you from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you for all your prayers and support during the time I was considering the call to Hope Valley. Last week I announced that I had turned down this call, because I believed that God was leading me in another direction. I apologise that I could not have made this announcement last week. On the one hand, I was committed to giving an answer regarding the call, but on the other hand, things were not yet in place for me to divulge any further details.

Last Wednesday, I met with Dr Stolz. Now that that meeting has taken place, I am able to give you notice that I will be taking two years ‘leave of absence’ from active ministry in the Lutheran Church of Australia. This ‘leave of absence’ will come into effect in three months time, unless circumstances should require it to be earlier or later.

‘Leave of absence’ means that I will resign from this parish, but remain on the Roll of Pastors as a ‘pastor without call’ for up to two years. At any time during that period I will be able to accept a call and return to the active ministry, but in the mean time, I will need to seek employment outside the church.

I am taking this course of action for several reasons--not the least being the stress that I have experienced in ministering to the three congregations. But primarily I am taking leave because I have had growing doubts about my interior call to the ministry of the Lutheran Church. These doubts have made it increasingly difficult for me to function as a public representative of the LCA.

Although I knew that things would come to this eventually, I did not expect it to happen so soon. The call to Hope Valley, however, brought the crisis to a head, and Dr Stolz advised me before I went on holidays that if I turned down the call, I should consider taking leave of absence.

The three month period before my leave of absence becomes effective may be shortened if I am able to secure full-time employment before it comes to an end. Alternatively, it may be lengthened should I still have found no alternative employment after three months. This, and other terms of the leave, will be negotiated with the Church Council.

I make this announcement with the deepest sadness. I have found my time with you rewarding and enriching, and have built up many strong pastoral relationships. I also deeply regret that this announcement has to be by way of a letter, in which I cannot properly convey the grief this decision brings me. Nor can I properly address your own reactions. Next week I will be with you to answer any questions you may have. In the mean time, please phone me if you want to talk about this further.

May the love and peace of God be with you all.

David.
5th Sunday after Epiphany, AD 2001

Although this letter was read by the elders at the Knox and Frankston parishes, I was present in person to make the announcement at Casey. I was glad of this this, because, of the three, Casey was the one I was worried about. In the words of District President “there is quite certainly a small cult of the person of David Schütz going on down there.” In the end, however, they accepted the news with equanimity and with gladness that I had the courage to make this decision. We were all being very strong about it, until one boy (one of the three young people I had admitted to first communion that morning) began to cry. That set me off, and several others too. I thanked him for being brave enough to be able to show his feelings like that--it was helpful for the rest of us.

I had tried to speak to my brothers on Saturday night to tell them what I was doing, but I was only able to speak to my younger brother and the wife of my youngest brother, as my youngest brother was away fighting bush fires on the Eyre Peninsula, and my oldest brother and his wife were away in Adelaide. So I tried again on Sunday, this time, getting my oldest brother as well. That was when I wrote the letter included in the last entry.

I then sent out a batch email to all pastors and other contacts and friends in and out of the church, sending a copy of the letter I had used to announce my decision to the congregations with this covering note:

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I am just writing you this brief note to make you aware of a decision that I have taken and announced to the congregations at Knox, Frankston, and Casey this morning. Attached is a letter that was read to after the lay-reading services at Knox and Frankston, as I was attending Casey all this morning.

I have taken this step of doing a "batch emailing", in an attempt to head off the "grapevine" and any rumours that may be spreading. I don't want to bore you all with the details or the reasons why, but if you want to know more, please phone me on (03) 9758 5194, or send back an email saying "tell me more", and I will be glad to respond.

Please also note that this decision has yet to be processed and approved by the District Church Council and the General Church Council.

Then on Monday, I wrote the following official letter of resignation:

District Church Council,
Lutheran Church of Australia--Victoria District,

Dear President and members of the District Church Council,

Yesterday I gave notice to Our Saviour’s Knox, St Peter’s Frankston, and Ascension Casey that I am applying for two years leave of absence, starting from 6th May 2001.

I am requesting this leave to allow myself time and space to determine the future of my ministry in the Lutheran Church of Australia.

Should I be offered employment outside the church before 6th of May, I will negotiate with the congregations for a reduction in my pastoral duties until that date is reached. If, through some misfortune, I am unable to attain employment before that date, I will seek an extension of up to one month before my leave becomes effective.

It is our intention to negotiate with the Knox congregation to continue living in the manse until such a time as we are able secure alternative accommodation, or the manse is required for other purposes by the congregation.

I understand that I will remain on the Roll of Pastors throughout the time of my leave of absence, and my access to the benefits of clergy of the LCA will not be inhibited. Should I not take a call within the two year period, I understand that I will be removed from the Roll of Pastors.

I commend the three congregations into your care.

Yours in Christ, etc.

I also wrote letters resigning from all my other duties, including LCA Commission on Worship, Victorian Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission, Chairmanship of the VCC Revisioning Committee, Australian Consultation on Liturgy,

I have been receiving many emails back from people and some phone calls to engage in discussion. Depending on who I have been speaking to, I have been fairly open about my reasons for making the decision, although I am trying to keep the reasons separate from the fact of my resignation for the sake of the congregation.

In the days since, I have felt very much at peace. It was the right decision after all. Even our cleaning lady said to me yesterday when I told her what I had decided: “Oh, that must be why you are looking so happy for a change!”

The last two nights I have fallen asleep praying the rosary. I don’t seem to be able to get beyond the third joyful mystery!

Notes on the period between Tuesday 30th and February 5th: in which I write lots of letters

I spoke to Peter Holmes tonight on the phone: “Mum, I’m tired, can I go home now?”

I have spoken about the road ahead to lots of people in the last few days: to members of my congregation, to my mother on the phone, to my seminary mentor, and to Fr John Fleming (who phoned as a "pastoral call").

The latter believed that my District President was "playing games" with me. He wanted to be quite sure that this is my own free decision, and that I was not being coerced. His question was: Could I ever see Cathy becoming a Catholic?

I had an argument with Cathy, a phone call from D. (one of my closest pastor friends) on Tuesday afternoon, and another call from my seminary mentor. I spent a lot of time preparing and mailing job applications.

I wrote the following letters to my family.

This is what I sent to my brothers, and to my Grandmother at the Hope Valley Homes:

11 Piperita Road
Ferntree Gully 3156

4th February, 2001

Dear ...,

I am glad we got to talk on the phone the other night. I would have preferred that I could have talked to you both in person, but I will have to use a letter to explain what has been happening. I have sent a similar letter to [my other brothers], and to Grandma. This will probably not be an easy letter for me to write, but I want to explain to you a little of why I turned down the call to Hope Valley and have taken leave of absence.

To begin with, I should say that the call was everything I could have wanted. Over a year ago, when the position was first created as a part-time chaplaincy, I said to Cathy “There is a job that I would really love to do.” I really thought that Aged Care might have been a direction for me to take, with my experience here as a chaplain for Martin Luther Homes in Boronia. The fact that I would have been moving back to Adelaide, closer to my family (right next door to Grandma, and practically next door to you!), and working with Pastor J.H. again (he was my senior partner at Warradale and is now the senior chaplain at Hope Valley), made it all the more attractive.

Yet in the end I had to turn it down. The reason for this is that I no longer believe that God is calling me to be a pastor in the Lutheran Church. When J.H. rang me to ask if he could put my name forward for call, I said ‘yes’ thinking that if the Lutheran Homes did decide to call me, this might be a real sign from God that I was indeed meant to continue as a pastor. I have been having these doubts since Easter last year, so I have been living with this for a while. The call actually accelerated things, and in discussion with my district president, he said to me that it had become clear that I had to decide between either going to Hope Valley and reaffirming my call to the ministry, or taking “leave of absence” from the ministry to sort things out.

In the end, after a very great deal of prayer and a lot of discussion with other pastors and friends and with Cathy, I have chosen to take leave of absence. Today I gave my congregations notice that I would be resigning, and that my resignation would be effective from three months time or earlier if I manage to secure a job (I am applying for jobs as a librarian). Theoretically, this gives me up to two years during which I will remain on the roll of pastors of the LCA. Any time during that two years, I can return into the ministry by taking a call.

The fact is, however, that I will not be returning to the ministry. So far what I have written in this letter is now public knowledge, but the reason for me taking leave of absence is something that I have only told friends and colleagues and family members in private (although I have no doubt the rumours will start to circulate soon). I will not be returning to the Lutheran ministry because I am preparing to be received into the Roman Catholic Church as soon as possible.

Two events have led me to this point. First, there was the agreement between the Catholic and Lutheran Churches with regard to the doctrine of justification. This agreement has shown that we have been guilty of misrepresenting the Catholic doctrine. The fact is that the Catholic Church teaches just as much as the Lutheran church that we are justified by God’s grace alone, and not by our own efforts. Secondly, the Lutheran Church of Australia very badly mishandled the issue of the ordination of women at the pastors’ conference and synod back in July last year. The split vote of the pastors’ conference, and the narrow defeat of women’s ordination at synod, demonstrated to me that the Lutheran Church had no recognised authority upon which it could decide such a fundamental issue of what was and what was not true.

But on top of this has been an intense reflection on the question of what the church actually is, and the authority by which the church distinguishes between what is true and what is false. In discussing my concerns with Lutheran pastors and Seminary lecturers, I realised that the Lutheran Church had no satisfactory answers to these questions. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church did have answers, and they were answers that, after some reflection--I came to accept as the truth.

In the face of this, I could not really continue to excercise a ministry as a Lutheran pastor. This “leave of absence” will basically cover the time between now and when I am (hopefully) received as a communicant member of the Catholic Church.

However, everything is not as clear and as straight-forward as all that. The Catholic Church has clear and strict rules regarding those who have been divorced and remarried. Divorced and remarried Catholics are not allowed to receive Holy Communion. For a convert to the Catholic faith such as myself, this means that I cannot actually be received into communion until my marriage to Cathy has been “regularised”. This means that both Cathy and I need to receive an “annulment” of our previous marriages (as we have both been married before). An “annulment” is a legal decision by the Catholic Tribunal that our previous marrriages were not binding sacramental marriages according to the definition of the Catholic church (similar to the way the State can “annul” a marriage if it doesn’t meet the legal requirements for a valid marriage). The process is lengthy, and is not guarenteed of success. In fact, the Tribunal may uphold one or the other or both of our previous marriages as valid, and therefore declare that our marriage to each other does not meet the requirements for a sacramental marriage recongised by the Church. If this is the case, I will never actually be able to be received into the Catholic Church.

That all sounds very complicated, but in fact it will make little difference to me with regard to which church I identify with. I will regard myself as a Catholic, even if I am never received into full communion in the Catholic church. On the other hand, if I am received into the Church, then a whole range of possibilities arise--maybe even ordination as a Catholic priest, although that would possibly be a bit of a long shot!

Cathy is not, herself, becoming a Catholic. She is remaining in the Lutheran Church. But she is very supportive of this decision. While the business of annulments raises some very unpleasant considerations for us, we are both totally committed to one another, our marriage and our children.

I know that this decision will cause pain for a lot of people, not the least those who are members of our family. But in the end this has become a conscience issue for me. I could not have gone to Hope Valley because I could not honestly have made the vows of a Lutheran pastor at my installation. If I went, I would have been doing so under false pretences.

There is so much more to say about this, but I find it very difficult to put into a short letter. I sent Mum and Dad a copy of my journal since last Easter, in the hope that it would help them understand my decision, and it is more than 40,000 words long (about 75 typed pages)--so it really is a very, very long story.

I hope I get the opportunity to sit and talk with you some time. I think that will be the only way that I could convey some of the reason for what I have chosen.

I am so very sorry that I could not have gone to Hope Valley. Like the call to Hermannsburg, it was never meant to be. Last time, I realised that as exciting as Hermannsburg would have been, it was not the way in which God was calling me. Thanks to that decision, I now have a wife and two wonderful daughters--something that at one stage I had thought would never happen. Now, I am acting in faith again, passing up what many would have seen as the perfect call, to follow where I think God is calling me. I trust that like the last time, this will also turn out for the best.

Please pray for me. I pray that you will be able to accept my decision. We can never really be happy if we try to live in a way that goes against our own conscience. I am at peace with my decision now, even though it probably will cause a lot of heart ache for others.

God be with you.

All my love,

David.

Tuesday, 30th January 2001: in which I tell my story to my 'deanery' head

Continuing the story, I had to go to around to the St James' Church manse after the wedding rehearsal to pick up the wedding registrar. While there, I took the opportunity to tell Pastor W. what I had decided, given that he is the Zone Counsellor (equivalent of a 'deanery head'). He is also my father's cousin. He had a lot of questions, but at no stage did he say, “These questions don’t make sense”. I guess there will be many people to whom I will have to tell the whole story from scratch like this.

That night I listened to the Governor General’s Australia Day message. At the end of his message, he quoted the well known words of King George VI:

I said to the man at the gate of the year, give me a light. He replied: Put your hand into the hand of God, and it will be to you better than a light, and safer than a known way.

Nothing could be more appropriate for me at the moment.

Monday, 29th January, 2001: in which I cross the Rubicon, if not the Tiber, and Anthony Fisher gives me good news and bad news.

Okay. I am telling people now that I may not yet have crossed the Tiber, but I have certainly crossed the Rubicon. “Elea iacta est”, as Ceasar said.

I rang my seminary mentor to tell him I wouldn’t be coming to this next round of Commission on Worship meetings, because I was taking leave of absence to determine whether I would join the Catholic Church. He tried to encourage me still to come, but I said it wasn’t worth paying the airfare. For a start, I could have a job by then, and be unable to come (hence, it would be a waste of the church’s valuable money); secondly, I didn’t think I should be away from Cathy and the kids at this time; finally, I thought it was not valid for me to be involved with something that I am no longer fully committed to. He accepted all this with genuine sadness.

On Friday there was a ‘Pastor’s Wives’ lunch at Holmes, but really it was just Holmes’, Brook’s, and ourselves there. Still, it was a good opportunity for the two of us to talk to Andrew, and for Jodie and Cathy to talk with Susie. Andrew is one of those who listens, understanding that the issues we have dealt with are serious, and not just us “doing our thing”.

After this, I had an appointment with Anthony Fisher. He had rung me to say that he had something he wanted to tell me after his interview with the Vicar General (Bishop Denis Hart) and the Archbishop (George Pell). It was a bit of a “good news” / “bad news” interview. The good news was that I would not need to worry about employment; that when I needed something, there would be something. Anthony said, “for instance, if you last out to Easter, we will have something for you.” But it did not matter if I found a secular job in the meantime, and that if I needed something sooner, he would put the pressure on the guys at the top to do something. Basically, my CV has been circulated among the various personnel offices of the Catholic Church and its agencies and schools, and they will contact me if there is anything going. A job will not simply be created for me, however.

The “bad news” on the other hand was that Anthony did everything he could to discourage me from thinking that ordination is anything other than a far shot for me. He said that the Vicar General seemed distinctly uneasy about the suggestion of ordination in my case, because of my “messy” marital situation. Furthermore, there is the problem of Cathy not being a Catholic. None of these reasons mean definitely that I will not be accepted for ordination, but they raise question marks.

Then we finished by talking about P. Anthony said: “It is bizarre that there is this figure there who is ushering you into the church and who isn’t going in himself.” And after I had made some reference to “bloody P.”, Anthony said: “Tell “bloody P.” that he had better come and see me soon; he might die tomorrow.”

The rest of the day was a bit of a daze, as I tried to take all this in. I had a wedding rehearsal at Moorabbin after seeing Anthony, and I think I drove all the way there and back home without really concentrating on my driving.

Tuesday, 23rd January 2001: In which I turn down the call to Hope Valley, and realise I need to focus on my family

Today I visited Anthony Fisher in his office in the Theological Halls of the Catholic Church in Victoria Parade to take in my curriculum vitae. Anthony was meeting at 12:30pm with the Vicar General (and probably also the Archbishop) concerning my future and what they could do for me. Maddy came with me (and scoffed down five jam biscuits that Anthony placed on a plate before her). I took Maddy in to give Cathy some free space, but I think a part of me was showing her off. We talked about several topics, although I really had little to talk about since we are going to meet again on Friday. The two things Anthony wanted to be sure of were that I had turned down the Hope Valley appointment and was feeling okay about this, and that Cathy was also okay about it. We talked a little about the possibility perhaps of doing extra study (with a scholarship from the Archdiocese), perhaps in the John Paul II Institute of which Anthony is the Director. I said I was applying for secular jobs also, and hoped that this would not prejudice my final consideration for the priesthood. Anthony assured me that it would not; that many convert priests have to work in secular jobs for a while; and that if the vocation to the priesthood is still there even when I have a comfortable secular job, this would actually count in my favour.

When I got home, I called my district president. I told him that I had reached a decision not to take Hope Valley, and that therefore, I would need to consider the consequences of this in regard to leave of absence. I said that I was applying for other jobs (I didn’t mention that the Catholic Church is working towards helping me), and that we needed to talk ASAP. We have an appointment for next Wednesday morning. He handled this information very straightforwardly and “matter-of-factly” as if there was nothing particularly surprising in what I was saying. I think he must have expected this.

I was going to call JH (head chaplain at Hope Valley Homes) and the South Australian President this afternoon, but didn’t have the psychic energy for it. I am also dealing with a funeral of a Martin Luther Homes resident at the moment, which is complicated in a number of ways. I have the wedding on Saturday, and then services on Sunday. It doesn’t feel much like a holiday at all anymore. I will have to make up for it later. I am still concerned that Cathy is not using these days for what she intended, namely her annulment application. I have asked Anthony to enquire regarding Fr Tony Kerin’s advice about the order of annulment/profession/communion, which he will do. He said that the sticking point is likely to be that although the Tribunal could give an indication of the expected result in my case, Cathy’s application is not advanced enough for them to form an opinion on it.

Mum had rung earlier and left a message to say she wanted to talk with me and see how things were going. This evening I heard Cathy say to Maddy: “Do you want to talk to Grandma on the phone?” while I was out hanging out the washing, and so I came straight inside and listened in on the other line. Of course, I immediately began to tell Mum about my own situation and developments, and Cathy objected that she was talking and I had interrupted. So I let her and Mum speak until Mum asked how things were going for me. Then I launched into the full story. Then Maddy started crying and Cathy dealt with her while I kept speaking. A minute or so later, Cathy came in to say to me “Let me know when you're finished”. Mum and I spoke for a while longer—she says I am “making it hard for myself” by attempting to enter the Catholic church—and then I said to Cathy that Mum was ready to speak to her, and she said “Not now, I’ll call her back”. After Maddy was put to bed, Cathy said to me: “I called your mother, and I wanted to talk to her about the children, but you turned the whole thing around to yourself. It just shows how self-absorbed you are about this whole thing.” I pointed out that I thought Mum was calling me back from earlier, and that I was only answering Mum’s questions. But she is right. I am really far to self focused. As I was watering the garden (preparing for tomorrow’s 37 degree heat), I thought to myself that I really have to re-enforce my commitment to Cathy in some way.

As she was feeding Mia latter tonight, I sat down on the bed and said that God had his reasons for only allowing me to consider the Catholic question once I was securely married to her with our two children. Our marriage and our family therefore take priority over everything, even if it seems that I am “absent” from them so much. Cathy was disappointed about how our holiday at Cowes turned out, and how this week is turning out (what with the funeral, wedding and all). Another pastor [a cousin of my father's and the one who eventually accepted the call to Hope Valley in my place] had said to me just before I went on holidays that a call can really spoil things over a holiday. I said to Cathy that I was really feeling frustrated too, that my holiday had turned into a combination of work and attempting to carve out a future for us. I will have to do my best to organise for a few days off next week or the following week to make up.

Monday, 22nd January, 2001: In which I call myself a Catholic, and look to future employment

The past week has been very good for me in coming to terms with my chosen direction. As I was going to Mass on Saturday night down at Cowes, I realised that I was no longer a Lutheran in any real sense at all. I am a Catholic in every sense except officially. The lack of official reception into the church is important, but so is the fact that in my faith I identify with the Catholic Church, not the Lutheran Church. Given all that, the time has definitely come for me to resign my parish and take leave of absence. Only one thing is keeping me from resigning from the ministry altogether and that is that if I am offiicially a Lutheran pastor, I may have a better chance of consideration for ordination as a Catholic priest.

There were several good librarians’ jobs advertised in Saturday’s Age, so I have begun reworking my resume (it is rather out of date). I received several messages from Anthony Fisher saying he needed a c.v. for the Archbishop and Vicar General, so I have been working on producing such a document as well.

I asked Anthony two questions on the phone this morning:

1) should I be applying for secular jobs while I have thrown myself on the mercy of the Church? Answer: “Yes, there will be no offence. If you can get a better job than the Archbishop can provide, by all means, go for it. I will tell him I told you to do so.”

2) What about Fr Kerin’s information regarding the order of annulment, profession and communion? Answer: “It surprises me, but there may be some canonical possibility there that I am not aware of. I will talk to the Vicar General about it.”

Tuesday, 16th January, 2001 – Part E: In which I review my deliberations over the past year

(Still working from notes about the past week)

I began my journal with this quotation from Newman’s Apologia:

You may think how lonely I am. ‘Obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui,’ has been in my ears for the last twelve hours. I realise more that we are leaving Littlemore, and it is like going on the open sea.

And then I wrote:

Yet maybe I will listen to the call that Abraham heard: “Obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui...” What I need is a healthy dose of faith, instead of this “The Lord helps those who help themselves” philosophy I am used to working with!!!”

That could hardly be more appropriate at this point. Alison’s reminder to me of God’s call to Abraham is, I think, a call to trust God’s leading even in the face of this threat of an enforced “leave of absence”. Abraham had to leave his security and his boundaries, and follow the call of his God to go “to the land that I will show you”. The remarkable thing (well brought out in a film some years ago) is that his wife went with him! This is, of course, the remarkable thing now. Cathy trusts God’s call to me more than I do!

Then there is that old saying that was very important to me once, and of which P. reminded me early on:

Follow the truth where it leads.

What is True? Not just what is “loving and creative”, as my spiritual director used to say, but what is TRUE? That would be a good addition to my director’s ethical criteria. In this case, I think it is decisive. Strange that Cathy is of the opinion that to go to Hope Valley would not be the loving thing to do, and that, in a strange way, it may be more loving to her and the kids to follow my calling to the Truth and, ultimately, more creative too, in that it would lead to the attaining of unimaginable goals of both marriage and family AND (perhaps) Catholic priesthood.

Now this is greatly contrasted with Cathy’s original position. I had recorded that in the first week or so of my journey, Cathy had said

There’s no way I will be getting an annulment of my first marriage.

The fact that she is now engaged in this process, and willingly so, is perhaps one good outcome of this call.

Also of importance is Ratzinger’s comment in Called to Communion:

Perhaps we are now a little better able to comprehend what a turnabout faith entails--to grasp the re-versal, the con-version that it contains: I acknowledge that God himself speaks and acts; I recognise the existence not only of what is ours but also of what is his. But if this is true, if we are not the only ones who choose and act, but he too speaks and acts, then everything changes. Then I must obey, then I must follow him, even when he leads me where I do not wish to go (Jn 21:18). Then it becomes reasonable, indeed, necessary, to let go of my own taste, to renounce my own wishes and to follow after him who alone can show the way to true life, because he himself is the life (Jn 14:6). This is what Paul means by the cruciform character of discipleship, which he underlines at the conclusion of the reading as the answer to the Corinthian party system (10:17): I abandon my taste and submit myself to him. But it is in this very way that I am set free, because the real slavery is imprisonment in the circle of our own wishes.

Now, this “cruciform character” is what I think the District President calls “the theology of the cross”, yet here what is meant is more of a “take up your cross and follow me” rather than “God-working-in-hidden-ways” theology. To “abandon my taste”, ie. what I want, and to “submit myself to him” can only be thought of in the sense of following the truth that God has revealed to me through the Catholic Church.

“I must obey”. “I must follow him, even when he leads me where I do not wish to go.” I may wish to go into the Catholic Church, yes, but do I really wish to go into the uncertainty of “leave of absence”, unemployment, homelessness etc. with out any assurance that I will actually arrive at the destination to which I believe God is calling me? No way! Yes, I want to get to where he is calling me, but I would prefer it without the Cross. But I don’t think I can avoid it. Of course I can't.

Early on, Fr Denis said that he was “afraid” for me, that he “admired my faith and courage”. Now, at that stage, that was all very flattering, especially because I wasn’t particularly being required either to be faithful or to be courageous. Now I am being called to be both, and I don’t need anyone else to be afraid “for me”, I am doing a very good job of being afraid for myself!!!

I also wrote at the beginning:

Essentially, this call to the Catholic Church is something that will not go away if I ignore it. It is an old issue for me that has resurfaced precisely when my ministry is shaky. It is therefore a foundational issue for me, and I have to deal with it eventually. ... If...I turn back at any stage before I reach the point at which I can go no further, the question of whether I should be a Catholic will always remain unresolved.

And that is Cathy’s point exactly.

When I first told the District President that I was on the road to becoming a Catholic, he said to me, “Well, you must ask yourself whether, having even gone this far, you can still continue as a Lutheran pastor, or whether you should resign.” At that time I said to myself that “in one sense he is right—I am already experiencing great difficulties in functioning in my pastoral role.” At that stage though I was still thinking that “out of all of it, I might...emerge even more Lutheran than when I went in.”

This is not true now, I think. The time to resign my parish (if not my place on the roll of pastors) has definitely come. I recorded in this journal back on the 10th of June last year that I was wondering if the time to resign had come. I did not act then. Now, six months have transpired, and it seems that the time is finally here. A lot has happened since then—the Pastor’s Conference and Synod, the annulment process, preparation with Anthony, preparations with the Archdiocese. Yes things are quite different now. Maybe it is time.

Things would be different if I could be assured of being received into the Catholic Church (even as a non-communing member). I wonder now, having re-read my notes, what Fr Tony Kerin meant at the initial interview when he said: “It would, however, not to be necessary for the annulment process to be complete before you were professed and began communing, because you could show that you were doing all in your conscience to set the situation right.” I need to check this out further. If I could, on this basis, be received into the church, I would feel much more secure in making the step of resignation.

Back in June last year, on the phone from Queensland, my Seminary mentor had said to me: “Do you have any idea how much hurt you will cause a lot of people? And how hard this will make it for those of us who remain in the church, like myself and Pastor P., and Pastor D.B.?” At least with regard to P. this seems to be true already. Speaking to P. on the phone the night before I came down here to the Island (on the 13th of January) he said (in very subdued tones for him), “This raises a lot of issues for me”. Maybe he is also reflecting on John Fleming’s challenge to him when we were at dinner at the Holmes' home.

Back in June, my mentor also said: “Especially, since I know you are likely to want to make some sort of big romantic stand out of this, don’t resign, but take leave of absence to consider this.” Again, this seems like a prophecy come true. I don’t think I will resign—there does not seem much point in this if I cannot be immediately received into the Catholic Church—but it has come time to take “leave of absence”.

Then there was my spiritual director's suggestion of seeing a clinical psychologist (“but perhaps the psychological must be examined too”) which I never followed up. Cathy said to me last night that perhaps I should do this, because of the “security” and “boundaries” issues. But I might start first with the cheaper option of talking to the Counsellor who works at my parish church in Knox.

My director had also asked me to consider the possibility that, before I make the final decision, I should get all those whom I have spoken to about this situation together for a round table discussion along the lines of “Okay, give it to me straight.” Could this still be useful as a methodology for handling the current crisis???

Then, in my email to G., I had written:

You will be pleased to know that I have, in the last week, determined not to act upon this matter until: 1) my first marriage has been annulled and Cathy's marriage declared not binding, so that we can both receive the blessing of the church on our marriage, 2) I have a job to go to, preferably a ministry position (lay) in the RC church, 3) our next child has been born, 4) the three congregations of Knox, Frankston and Casey have sorted themselves out a little more than currently is the case. Hence, we are probably talking at least 2 years here.

Of all these prerequisites, only number three has been fulfilled, ie, Mia has been born. Nothing else has been settled. In this regard, taking leave of absence now is a bit premature.

Then, at the end of Synod, I wrote:

When I get home, I will begin preparation for my annulment application. I will hang around in the LCA until my annulment is granted and our marriage is blessed, and then I will move on. I will begin other procedural explorations as well. In the meantime, God grant me the grace to continue my ministry in good faith until it is possible for me to profess my faith as a Roman Catholic. I can’t stay in the LCA, I just cannot. To do so would be completely against the grain for me.

Well, it seems that this prayer for grace has not been granted. “The Old Man”, as my District President called God, is forcing the issue.

In August, after the Synod, I also wrote

I have felt quite despondent in the last few weeks. Above all, to be able to do this job, you have to believe in it.

The District President seems to have recognised that I have, in fact, lost faith in my own ministry. This is why he/God is forcing the issue.

Fr John Fleming once said to me “Trust Cathy”, and back in 1987 the guys sang a parody at our wedding:

Trust and obey,
for there’s no other way,
to be happy with Cathy but to trust and obey.

It was very funny at the time, but now both those words and the words of the original have come back to haunt me. I hate “Trust and Obey” as a song, probably because I am lousy at either trusting or obeying—but now I have to both trust and obey both God and Cathy!

++++++++++

A couple of days ago, I received a short letter from my Godmother and her husband. In it, she said:

We are glad, David, that you shared your deliberations with us. For me it made clearer some things I was hearing and others about which I have wondered for some time. In many ways I ponder why this discussion has been so long coming. In the end, what denomination you are makes no difference, but we remain concerned about your reasons. Keep in touch and all the best in your deliberations about your call to Adelaide.

In a sense, this was a good letter to get, but I know they disapprove of my reasons, and partly that is because to them “what denomination [I am] makes no difference”. Surely it would make a difference to them if I became Jehovah’s witness or Mormon or Muslim or something? So what is their criterion of truth? They have totally failed to think about what I was saying.