1. Clergy Workforce Continuous Professional Development Report.
Producing people who it can be objectively demonstrated are generally well-integrated both emotionally
and professionally!
Key Recommendations:
Executive Summary
The recommendations that were generated out of my recent period of paid action-research undertaken into the
training needs of clergy who hav e finished preparatory training & are now undertaking full -time professional
placement within the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.
A case put for a considerably enhanced program of ongoing professional training for clergy that also addresses
the wider context of their whole of life situations.
I undertook a period of action research. (Familiarisation, looking at the key current schools of thought, best
practice examples elsewhere, seeking anecdotes, reading all old agency files, querying the established
shibboleths, comfortable illusions, assumed competencies, successes, achiev ements & asking those 'out of fav our'
within and without this network, 'bad or outlier or ‘naughty’ clients' included).
Context- The real & cold facts are well known – but solutions do not seem to be v ery thick on the ground. It
appears conditions are not yet right to consider these recommendations howev er the process of coming to be
able to make these recommendations was insightful & interesting.
I came up with the following:
In terms of the existing prov isions of support:
Remov e program connection between the prov ision of the holistic support program outlined below and any
recurrent funding to be prov ided for program(s) whose basis is to spend it on dealing with that small minority of
the workforce (in this case priests) that manifest a 'pathology', an 'illness', a ‘cognitiv e deficit’, a 'breakdown', a
‘crisis’ inv olv ing an indiv idual that needs ‘one on one’ often ‘one time only’, ‘one episode’ support to ‘get them
through' & instead:
A. Focus on the entire workforce and NOT just those currently compliant with whatev er training & ongoing
formation opportunities are offered but WHOLE OF WORKFORCE.
B. See preparing for periods of illness, instability, problems, complaints as ONE of the skill-sets that ALL will get
training in so clergy are equipped and enabled to author their OWN treatment, support plans, ways of dealing
with illness, crisis, complaints etc. So they do not feel that they hav e to rely on those well-meaning people (ev en
those paid to do so) who assume the role of 'their handmaidens' or 'helpers' (Whether these be v olunteers, well-meaning
laypeople with relev ant qualifications or people employed by the church authorities).
C, One consequence would be the separating programmatically of any holistic ‘whole of workforce’ wellbeing
program from any of the existing aged –care nursing teams based programs (often prov ided by part-time and
often sole nurse practitioners .These ‘interv ening’ in times of perceiv ed crisis or ‘need’ programs still mostly focus
on prov iding support for ageing clergy facing later life health and wellbeing decisions. Increasingly, howev er,
most Australasian dioceses seem to be using these programs as conduits to prov ide good deal of whatev er

2. prev entativ e and/or other ‘support’ they feel may be needed to be giv en for the perceiv ed ‘mental health’,
somatic and social well-being needs of the whole of their clergy workforce (beyond just the frail aged part of it.
D. See it as mandatory for all in the workforce group to demonstrate they hav e built personal, close & other
appropriate networks of socialisation, friendship, support, adv ice, to support them & who they can trust to follow
through with helping them achiev e their current & projected professional projects. Or to sustain them if they need
periods of absence either to deal with legal, personal or other matters. (This assumes normal duty of care
checkpoints & cross-checks as 'tick-offs' will also be built into the CPD program too based on internal (Canon
Law) & general (Civ il & Criminal Law) duty of care issues - (e.g. Obligation to take medication, comply with legal
& Canon law obligations etc.)
E. To craft a continuous professional and pastoral education program leadership will hav e the dev elopment &
enhancement of socialization & personal support network building also explicitly built in for all participants. That is
added onto and apart from it also being comprehensiv e & univ ersal in the way it will also enhance the clergy
workforce’s professional & technical skills, people skills, business administration & pastoral & community
dev elopment skill-sets. In prov iding this ‘whole of life’ life-skills package it will far exceed measures ev er
contemplated in the av erage workforce CPD program or ev en in the best practice continuous pastoral
education programs that exist in religious, caring & welfare workforce contexts (such as the excellent program
prov ided by the Methodist Church of Ireland).
F. Key check-list for points & the award of points & pathways will be needed relating to working on enhancing &
maintaining socialisation, personal friendship network creation, affectiv e relationship maintenance, creation of a
mixed broad & deep wider intermediate network of professional & personal supports, & in psychological
reflection, & receiv ing & reflecting spiritual direction & professional de-briefing.
G. The program will hav e built into it special access to other ‘add-ons’ such as regularly held group sessions to
deal with critical incidents, traumatic stress, the issue of handling extreme conflict, or a conflict situation currently
being experienced (not just theoretical and general skill-acquisition in this area). These groups would be part of
the new support network to be set up for the clergy.
H. 24/7 access to emergency agile phone-back up EAP (Employee Assistance Programs) as is usual now in most
social serv ice agencies will be another add-on. As will be immediate recourse to access to one on one extra
support for the issues mentioned in G abov e. At times people will be recommended to attend one of the already
scheduled groups relev ant to a person facing an unexpected issue as mentioned in E abov e. (But this non-indiv
idually tailored option would not normally be the ONLY option the person would be expected hav e
offered/av ailable to them).
I. A key feature of this tailoring of options in time of a particular crisis or of perceiv ed need would be the capacity
to form a short-term group JUST FOR THAT ONE WORKFORCE MEMBER (not necessarily to wait for a 'group' of
people with the same issue to manifest) to assist that ONE person to work through that particular issues or
situation.
Such group(s) may need to be formed from v olunteers, friends & others in the person’s network while being
facilitated by a hired-in professional. This bought-in professional (not part of any existing church sub-cultural
network) will facilitate the group context for working through the issue for the person concerned. And also
facilitate the termination phase or the mov ing on to other forms of support until this is no longer needed.
J. All abov e will require a restructuring of existing long entrenched clergy work practices (Such as NOT granting
clergy of two days off a week as with most other people since the 1910’s) (The granting of two days off a week is
common practice for non-Catholic clergy for example).
K. Out of this ‘added on’ and new ‘personal time’ it is recommended that at least a half a day (a fortnight) to be
set-side for attendance at structured ‘in house’ CPD activ ities. Such as those seminars currently operated by the

3. Melbourne Archdiocese Ministry for Priests, or other lectures, seminars or programs of study. The option of linking
these to the gaining of VET (Vocational and Further Education), or full Univ ersity programs should be part of this
but my interv iews with clergy emphasized unless clergy had a ‘yen’ or keen motiv ation to attend seminars or talks
they might dev elop ‘compulsory attendees syndrome’ (So therefore they should hav e the freedom to choose to
choose whether or not to incorporate this half day a fortnight into a formal gaining of a qual ification or not.)
L. Another (the second out of the four new additional half-days a fortnight now av ailable for them be set aside for
an unstructured external non-church activ ity. That is ‘extra to the (church., clerical or ‘churchy’ (internal
organisation emanating’ activ ity that will still need to conform with CPD program check-list guidelines (E.g. the
time used in their own area of interest such as music, sport, athletic or health-related activ ity, attendance at a
concert, a current affairs talk or lecture, serv ice on a local board or committee or project).
M. The third extra half-day that would be made av ailable for them per fortnight be set-aside for an activ ity
specifically related to building-up aspects of their immediate personal friendship network. The point being that in
recording what they did with this time they would gain points in the CPD program for demonstrating that they
hav e undertaken critical reflection on how they are deepening and thickening their immediate personal and
closely intimate support networks.
N. The fourth and final half day now av ailable to them be set-aside for clergy to deliberately network & otherwise
enhance/build up a wider network of professional & general personal support. All this to be seen as key part of
their professional/pastoral/personal dev elopment & awarded points needed to show their activ e and intelligent
cultiv ation of such a network. CPD points would be awarded for such things as taking part in inter-faith Minister’s
meetings, or local serv ice or community or sporting clubs.
It would be expected that clergy would be strike up longer lasting linkages and friendships out of this activ ity. So
that ov er time people would be added to their closer personal supporter network A CLEAR message from the
priests I talked to was that MANY priests tend to find they ‘no longer hav e’ (due to ageing parents, siblings or
contemporaries) a close personal support network that is v aried enough in range of ages and/ or still
geographically proximate to allow them to call on them at will and when really needed!
O. On top of this there would need to be more time set aside than the ‘system’ the hierarchy’, current general
custom and expectations of parish culture see as ‘normal’ for spiritual, biblical reflectiv e and other mystical
retreats, days or ‘times out’ etc. Feed-back I gained from priests who hav e maximising their opportunities in this
area suggest that this should, at least, total two full weeks a year. (That is on top of whatev er formal holidays they
are granted by their Bishop and may decide to do such an activ ity during this time as well). On feedback
receiv ed,
P.I would argue, this be allowed to be taken as at least one full week set aside specifically for a long retreat. Then
another week in total out of ev ery year – to be taken in 3-4 blocs of 1-2 days. This would require parishes and
church authorities to accustom themselv es to their clergy hav ing ‘built in’ on top of the tow half days a week,
existing long holiday period, and on av erage three of our existing commitment to officially required or allowed
ev ents or retreats ev en more absences, on top of those that are currently ‘customarily’ understood to be the
norm ‘norm’!
Q. A key feature of this extended ‘time-out’ program would be that EXTRA CPD (Continuous Professional
Dev elopment) points would be awarded to those clergy who attended retreats where key issues of personal
dev elopment and reflection were handled head-on in a prayerful, spiritual context. Where points would be
awarded for attending retreats where the following key issues were discussed:
1. Psycho-sexual’ dev elopment in general but also too how it relates to:
a. The issue of how to handle power, how to approach and deal with notions of authority and how this might
need to be critically contrasted with simple notions of the exercise of arbitrary command and control ‘power’

4. b. How to handle the inev itable conflation of personality types and the way ‘I’ as self-understood ‘type’ or
tendency towards one cluster of responses /approaches handle the exercise of status, power, how I influence,
persuade or respond to other’s influence or persuasion.
c. A positiv e spirituality of the role of status or mystical authority and ev en of the idea of a chain of hierarchy,
understood in a positiv e way.
d. The lay/clerical/religious roles considered and reflected on.
e. How to successfully and positiv ely engage in a healthy effectiv e way with children adults, women, and men
and especially in terms of how this is done in terms of a-d abov e.
R. From time to time and depending on the local or personal context EXTRA CPD points also be awarded for
attending retreat to prayerfully reflect on other key issues such as cultural sensitiv ity, disability, addictions etc., So
that clergy who attend retreats where key intra-psychic/personal issues are tackled ‘head-on’ would gain extra
benefits / reap extra rewards and recognition through gaining extra points in the CPD program.
S.A key motiv ational factor for encouraging participation in the CPD program will be the focusing of it on
allowing clergy to plan ahead for their long sabbatical. They can demonstrate a pre-existing pattern of focus,
interest and effort expended in certain direction which then will allow them to argue for their sabbatical to be
focused and formed around these preexisting skills, interest, skills and preferences. They will be easily able to
demonstrate the v alue and worth to them of spending their sabbatical focusing on some or all of the key areas
that they can already show they hav e spent time and effort on v ia the CPD program.
T. No compulsion to do anything in particular but there WILL BE a need to hav e a properly thought out program of
the ongoing upkeep of their minimal CPD points.
U. PLUS some further incentiv e (such as granting an extra two weeks of annual leav e for the next period till the
next sabbatical): if they build in a pastoral skill or practice, a professional skill, or a personal dev elopment or
personal network enrichment project in their sabbatical.
Not part of my recommendations but for discussion:
Relating to clergy facing retirement or past retirement age:
V. Consideration giv en to formally structured part-time roles for men aged ov er 75 who pass a general psycho-somatic
capacity test (in terms of ambulation, capacity to driv e a car, capacity to self-care in general, and
present in a reasonable fashion when assessed ev ery six months by fiv e health care professionals (two of their
choice, two who are often or regularly used by the employer (the Church) and one chosen independently). (A
majority v ote out of four out of fiv e being all that is required).
W. Consideration to be giv en to rational, forwardly planned combination of parishes, resources, places of worship
using the authority of the central church Administration to create in each local area clergy residences that would
function as multiple person households. Households in which there would be at least one younger, one middle
aged one retired or part-time working professional clergy resident.
If necessary -non clergy to be sourced to be resident in these parish homes to create a multi-generational
household and generate the dynamics of an inter-generational household with all its challenges but also with all
its opportunities for professional enhancement, personal support & socialisation.
X. All clergy to be giv en or dev elop an activ e brief for planning for transition in their last 4 years before turning 75.
So that when people transition to the Pastor Emeritus role they then BUILD THIS into their personal CPD plan &

5. program. So that their key CPD task becomes to alter, adapt & re-frame their existing CPD program to focus on
supporting and then sustaining them this once retirement occurs.
The elements in the plan that relate to personal networks, wider immediate personal networks, to pastoral skills &
practices would probably normally predominate in the retired person’s plan - but retired people will continue as
full participants in the wider CPD program.
The part-time option may then become one other option to build a new CPD plan & program.
Y.A second option would be to focus on part-time role (post- retirement age). Or seeking permission to begin
part-time work in a parish up to ten years prior to retirement while undertaking one or a few key areas of pastoral
practice or skill relating to that person’s area of special or personal interest or demonstrable area of special
aptitude. So that might though this might focus on activ ities undertaken outside of normal parish ministry – it still
might carry with it an expectation of regular contact with large number of people (such as in spiritual direction,
specialist chaplaincy in health settings, education , or other special projects or works).
Z. A third option might be the situation that usually currently, generally, applies – a quiet & priv ate retirement. An
option where the emphasis would be on focusing on activ ity within the person's personal and intermediate
networks. – The person’s life then tending to focus on whatev er options they see themselv es exercising as a friend,
mentor, and as a prov ider & receiv er of support generated within their wider intermediate network of contacts.
This is a further way that a CPD program with the emphases discussed in B-U abov e would ensure that all
participants would hav e a qualitativ ely deep & broad base of personal contacts to draw on if they did choose to
focus on a priv ate retirement.
As indicated abov e the CPD program would continue on ev en if the person chose a lifestyle focused on a
relativ ely priv ate retirement. It would just be that the CPD checklists would hav e been reformatted to be relev ant
& useful for the person taking up this option. The CPD program would take on v ery important role at this stage of
life as attendance at structured ev ents as part of it would keep aliv e for the priv ately retired ‘some degree of
ongoing participation in the professional & collegial life of the wider clerical workforce.