Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jessica Carney's avatar

Spurred in no small part by JD's vote of confidence, I signed up for (and attended, two weekends ago) one of the synodal listening sessions that my archdiocese (Philly) has organized. There are literally dozens of such sessions happening over the next couple months. There were about 25-30 people there, and I was one of three under the age of 50.

But actually, I was pretty happy with how it went. We did not start with tedious introductions or icebreakers, but with a full 20 minute lectio divina on the Road to Emmaus story, and a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance. My table included a couple of older ladies lamenting the lost "freedom" of the days of Vatican II, and the relative conservatism of their young pastor, and I was able to share with them my own experience of being basically uncatechized in post-V2 1990s CCD, and the younger generations grateful rediscovery of older traditions that have real beauty and shouldn't be thrown out baby-with-bathwater. They seemed genuinely happy to hear from me, and reassured that someone who could like altar rails and chant could also give an unhesitating thumbs-up to the documents of V2 and the Novus Ordo. I was reminded of how many people are still in the pews who were wounded in different ways by their pre-conciliar experiences of being catechized by rote but not evangelized, and whose questions and curiosities were too often stifled instead of answered.

We also had a good discussion on some current issues in the Church, without veering into politics. (The Institute for Church Leadership helped organize these sessions for the Archdiocese and did a phenomenal job.)

Whether any of my table's comments will have an impact up the chain... Well, who can say. But I think we were all edified by participating in the way JD had hoped.

Expand full comment
Jus ad bellum's avatar

So why doesn't The Pillar organize an actual synodal listening session that connects the biggest players among this secret gathering of the smartest of the smart pro....whatever it is they claim to have a monopoly of being "pro" of, exactly.... and then all a dream team of the biggest players of the "opposition" who can get into the weeds on Vatican II (distinguishing perhaps between text and application), Humane Vitae (and who DID dissent from it, exactly and whatever happened to them?), and all the last 50 years of controversy like who exactly were the players involved in the so-called "American Church" or "parallel magisterium" I heard so much about in the 1990s.

I think it would be the best thing ever if we got 12 vs. 12 on a stage and gave ourselves a whole weekend or week to hash things out, once and for all, without interruptions. Like a Joe Rogan long form podcast but with a stadium of live audience members.

In my experience there's the actual experts....and then there's the public wonks. There's the real players....and then there's the media creations. There are people who grandstand but can't handle any opposition without blowing a gasket like pretty much anyone at NC Reporter.... and then there are people who can argue without becoming emotionally invested and overwrought.

I've personally met many of the cardinals and bishops over the years. To a man they're sharp cookies. Men don't become Cardinals without being able to string together a persuasive (if sometimes slippery) case for their agendas. Professors etc. tend to be smooth as well and comfortable in the high grass, down in the details of who did what, when, why, and how?

But a surprising number of in-side baseball, ad intra Catholic controversies seem to boil down on bad information, innuendo or guesses taken as infallible revelation, rumors and preference cascades taken as much more weightier than the proof or probability warrants. This sort of thing of course makes for engaging media spectacle and drives clicks but works only in echo chambers which is why the fireworks only happen indirectly across 'party lines' rather than in any open debate with both parties across a table from each other.

We need more examples of actual people who can disagree about serious topics without invective, mobs, or passive aggression and hash out their differences or at least demarcate where the borders are between their positions in real time, face to face.

Expand full comment
24 more comments...
Latest

No posts