okay, the percentages aren't high, but it's still got to be one of the biggest consultation exercises in history. not bad.
good to see my own archdiocese get a look in as well. some of the choicest excerpts from our synthesis, admittedly mostly from older Catholics:
"The ordained ministry should be the result of a discerned call independent of gender. The call of some women to ordained ministry must be recognised and celebrated. Women are ready and willing to serve, though they do not wish to be locked into the current outdated and unworkable model of priesthood."
"Liturgical scruples impoverish us. We need flexibility to ensure enlivened liturgies, with both music and message that speak to today’s young."
Most Catholics do not want to be asked what they think about religion. Most Catholics want priests and bishops to be experts in their fields. Is it any wonder that the majority of those who showed up want weird things that have nothing to do with our Faith? Like women who are ordained but aren't priests?
Most people want their religion to be a simple matter: This is what you have to do. This is how you do it. This is what you must not do. If you want to go deeper, here are some books you can read. That is how religion worked 100 years ago and that is what most people are looking for. Fewer synods and less hand-wringing. More confidence. What Catholics are saying by low Mass attendance and lack of interest is the synod is simply: get back to me when you have figured it out.
It’s nonsense to compare turnout with baptised. Everyone in ireland is baptised, practice level below 20%. Turnout is low but the people who stayed away now reacting because they don’t like the results. You should have showed up!!
Getting people to participate in a consultative process like this requires getting them to believe that what they say in the process will make some practical difference. I don't think people feel like that about the Synod. I think people feel like diocesan and Vatican officials will make a show of "listening," and then do whatever they already wanted to do anyway. That may not always be true, especially in some dioceses, but it's often how people feel.
While these are not high numbers, they are probably very high for such an ambitious attempt (global!) with so little in the way of support or infrastructure. It's not as if everyone had been given a survey he was required to fill out, the way elections are held in some countries. Most surveys receive only a small percentage of replies, which is why census workers go from house to house -- and even then, some people are unreachable and others lie. No one went from house to house, or even parish to parish for the main Mass of the week, to ask the same list of short list of questions.
That said, it's easy to see why most who heard about it gave it a pass. At least in the USA, these things are generally useless -- either data gathering that gets written up and put on a shelf, or a pretend gathering of input for a pre-determined decision. I forgot to go to my "synod meeting," and I usually go to these things just so I can say I did, and that I saw what happened (instead of relying on reports), as well as in the off chance that they are actually helpful. I've been to a few such things that really WERE useful and really DID gather information, so there's always hope. But I didn't have much hope for this one -- at this point, if the bishops don't know what is happening in their dioceses why in the world not? The pope seems to have a clear (to himself, anyway) idea of what he wants to do in mind, and doesnt seem actually interested in what anyone else thinks about it, even the most devout and holy people. If he leaves Cardinal Zen out on the doorstep, what point is there in my word at the Synod within a Synod within a Synod within a Synod?
As one who not only facilitated but participated in several synodal sessions throughout the U.S. I will say that those who participated were intentional,honest,humble and searching.My feeling about this process in the US lies at the feet of many ho hum bishops who knew about this well in advance,claimed they did not have enough time to get the ball rolling and then sat back till the last minute and did little. In my own very large parish,I approached our administrator in May,had three meetings knowing more than he did and then had someone else do the presentation which resulted in few even understanding what it was all about. Laity involvement? Are you kidding me. I feel that the laity with whom I interacted are far more informed and anxious to do the work our Holy Father asks. Of course that depends on whether you recognize Pope Francis as Pope. It would be interesting to see what efforts by the local bishops resulted in the numbers you offer. The Holy Spirit is at work here and despite the lame efforts of clergy,will prevail.I need no stats to convince me.
In the Archdiocese of Louisville's synthesis Addendum, it lists 2389 people participated. I'm not sure the best place to get numbers of Mass-going or self-identifying Catholics, but the statistics page says there are about 200,000 Catholics in Arch-Lou, which makes the participation rate 1.19%.
Maybe ordinary churchgoers thought that the whole thing was a colossal waste of time, and that those who would show up for "listening sessions" were those who wish to pull the Church leftward. IMHO, the Church needs to be in the world, but not of it. Too many activists wish to make the Church conform to the world. Check with the mainline Protestant denominations about how well that has worked for them.
I didn't attend because when I had Professor Richard McBrien for ecclesiology, he had us read an article by Von Balthasar which described the Church as the Body of Christ. The clergy are supposed to be the skeleton and the laity the skin which comes into contact with the rest of the world, according to Von Balthasar's interpretation of the documents of Vatican II. As a lay person I have no desire to facilitate the Church becoming all skeleton and no flesh. The cure for clericalism is not to turn everyone into a cleric. So I didn't go.
Most Catholics in the USA probably don’t know what the Church teaches about extremely important believes or don’t care. Catholics in our political system are a good example. Our Church like our political system has been infiltrated by strong left leaning folks who want what they believe is “right and just”. The problem is they believe their own lie and demand everyone else do the same. Courage, we need courage, our priest, bishops and cardinals need courage to speak the Truth, teach the Truth and live the Truth. We may all suffer persecution but so be it. If we do not many will be lost.
I personally believe the ordinary Catholic, especially the younger ones, are searching for the Truth. They are the ones who will help the Churc be radical about the faith….you know… like Jesus did.
My parish had two sessions to neither of which I could attend. When I asked if they had the online questionnaire I was told that only those who could attend in person would be heard. So that was disappointing, to say the list. On the other hand, I didn't feel I could answer many of the question, either because they were above my pay grade or because my answer would have been, "Isn't that already settled?"
While admittedly in an odd situation (military overseas & attend local parish) I never saw anything about how to participate. Not even an online survey, which I totally would have done.
So, I’d wonder if dioceses that get bigger percentages had multiple (easy!!) avenues for the laity to share input.
Is there any level of accountability in the synthesis documents to ensure that the bishops aren't just editorializing to fit their agenda? In the Seattle document, what was written seems to be in perfect alignment with what many in the Seattle diocese perceive as the particular bishop's ideology.
While I don't know Catholics from around the entire state, pretty much all of the ones I do know have expressed major grief about having both communion on the tongue and coffee/donuts banned, the latter being banned for longer than the state required, but none of these were mentioned at all in the document. Only that a "minority of voices questioned the suspension of public Masses" and a contrast with the "majority" who were happy about the Church response. I saw no similar juxtaposition of "minority" and "majority" when certain voices were quoted and referred to on the subjects of proposed changes in Church teaching on "LGBTQ Catholics" and women's ordination--which was referred to in the document as a "matter of justice".
If it's just the case that the "conservative" Catholics simply didn't show up to give their voice, then what does that say about the skew of the data collected and the validity of the conclusions arrived at?
Peter said that Jewish Christians could eat pork and gentile converts didn’t need circumcision. The church evolves and changes that’s why it is so successful. One minute Christian’s are being martyred the next minute the successors of Peter are burning Christian’s alive. Change or die
okay, the percentages aren't high, but it's still got to be one of the biggest consultation exercises in history. not bad.
good to see my own archdiocese get a look in as well. some of the choicest excerpts from our synthesis, admittedly mostly from older Catholics:
"The ordained ministry should be the result of a discerned call independent of gender. The call of some women to ordained ministry must be recognised and celebrated. Women are ready and willing to serve, though they do not wish to be locked into the current outdated and unworkable model of priesthood."
"Liturgical scruples impoverish us. We need flexibility to ensure enlivened liturgies, with both music and message that speak to today’s young."
Most Catholics do not want to be asked what they think about religion. Most Catholics want priests and bishops to be experts in their fields. Is it any wonder that the majority of those who showed up want weird things that have nothing to do with our Faith? Like women who are ordained but aren't priests?
Most people want their religion to be a simple matter: This is what you have to do. This is how you do it. This is what you must not do. If you want to go deeper, here are some books you can read. That is how religion worked 100 years ago and that is what most people are looking for. Fewer synods and less hand-wringing. More confidence. What Catholics are saying by low Mass attendance and lack of interest is the synod is simply: get back to me when you have figured it out.
It’s nonsense to compare turnout with baptised. Everyone in ireland is baptised, practice level below 20%. Turnout is low but the people who stayed away now reacting because they don’t like the results. You should have showed up!!
Getting people to participate in a consultative process like this requires getting them to believe that what they say in the process will make some practical difference. I don't think people feel like that about the Synod. I think people feel like diocesan and Vatican officials will make a show of "listening," and then do whatever they already wanted to do anyway. That may not always be true, especially in some dioceses, but it's often how people feel.
While these are not high numbers, they are probably very high for such an ambitious attempt (global!) with so little in the way of support or infrastructure. It's not as if everyone had been given a survey he was required to fill out, the way elections are held in some countries. Most surveys receive only a small percentage of replies, which is why census workers go from house to house -- and even then, some people are unreachable and others lie. No one went from house to house, or even parish to parish for the main Mass of the week, to ask the same list of short list of questions.
That said, it's easy to see why most who heard about it gave it a pass. At least in the USA, these things are generally useless -- either data gathering that gets written up and put on a shelf, or a pretend gathering of input for a pre-determined decision. I forgot to go to my "synod meeting," and I usually go to these things just so I can say I did, and that I saw what happened (instead of relying on reports), as well as in the off chance that they are actually helpful. I've been to a few such things that really WERE useful and really DID gather information, so there's always hope. But I didn't have much hope for this one -- at this point, if the bishops don't know what is happening in their dioceses why in the world not? The pope seems to have a clear (to himself, anyway) idea of what he wants to do in mind, and doesnt seem actually interested in what anyone else thinks about it, even the most devout and holy people. If he leaves Cardinal Zen out on the doorstep, what point is there in my word at the Synod within a Synod within a Synod within a Synod?
As one who not only facilitated but participated in several synodal sessions throughout the U.S. I will say that those who participated were intentional,honest,humble and searching.My feeling about this process in the US lies at the feet of many ho hum bishops who knew about this well in advance,claimed they did not have enough time to get the ball rolling and then sat back till the last minute and did little. In my own very large parish,I approached our administrator in May,had three meetings knowing more than he did and then had someone else do the presentation which resulted in few even understanding what it was all about. Laity involvement? Are you kidding me. I feel that the laity with whom I interacted are far more informed and anxious to do the work our Holy Father asks. Of course that depends on whether you recognize Pope Francis as Pope. It would be interesting to see what efforts by the local bishops resulted in the numbers you offer. The Holy Spirit is at work here and despite the lame efforts of clergy,will prevail.I need no stats to convince me.
In the Archdiocese of Louisville's synthesis Addendum, it lists 2389 people participated. I'm not sure the best place to get numbers of Mass-going or self-identifying Catholics, but the statistics page says there are about 200,000 Catholics in Arch-Lou, which makes the participation rate 1.19%.
https://www.archlou.org/about-the-archdiocese/history/statistics/
https://www.archlou.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Synod-Report-2022-Final.pdf
Maybe ordinary churchgoers thought that the whole thing was a colossal waste of time, and that those who would show up for "listening sessions" were those who wish to pull the Church leftward. IMHO, the Church needs to be in the world, but not of it. Too many activists wish to make the Church conform to the world. Check with the mainline Protestant denominations about how well that has worked for them.
I didn't attend because when I had Professor Richard McBrien for ecclesiology, he had us read an article by Von Balthasar which described the Church as the Body of Christ. The clergy are supposed to be the skeleton and the laity the skin which comes into contact with the rest of the world, according to Von Balthasar's interpretation of the documents of Vatican II. As a lay person I have no desire to facilitate the Church becoming all skeleton and no flesh. The cure for clericalism is not to turn everyone into a cleric. So I didn't go.
Most Catholics in the USA probably don’t know what the Church teaches about extremely important believes or don’t care. Catholics in our political system are a good example. Our Church like our political system has been infiltrated by strong left leaning folks who want what they believe is “right and just”. The problem is they believe their own lie and demand everyone else do the same. Courage, we need courage, our priest, bishops and cardinals need courage to speak the Truth, teach the Truth and live the Truth. We may all suffer persecution but so be it. If we do not many will be lost.
I personally believe the ordinary Catholic, especially the younger ones, are searching for the Truth. They are the ones who will help the Churc be radical about the faith….you know… like Jesus did.
My parish had two sessions to neither of which I could attend. When I asked if they had the online questionnaire I was told that only those who could attend in person would be heard. So that was disappointing, to say the list. On the other hand, I didn't feel I could answer many of the question, either because they were above my pay grade or because my answer would have been, "Isn't that already settled?"
While admittedly in an odd situation (military overseas & attend local parish) I never saw anything about how to participate. Not even an online survey, which I totally would have done.
So, I’d wonder if dioceses that get bigger percentages had multiple (easy!!) avenues for the laity to share input.
Is there any level of accountability in the synthesis documents to ensure that the bishops aren't just editorializing to fit their agenda? In the Seattle document, what was written seems to be in perfect alignment with what many in the Seattle diocese perceive as the particular bishop's ideology.
While I don't know Catholics from around the entire state, pretty much all of the ones I do know have expressed major grief about having both communion on the tongue and coffee/donuts banned, the latter being banned for longer than the state required, but none of these were mentioned at all in the document. Only that a "minority of voices questioned the suspension of public Masses" and a contrast with the "majority" who were happy about the Church response. I saw no similar juxtaposition of "minority" and "majority" when certain voices were quoted and referred to on the subjects of proposed changes in Church teaching on "LGBTQ Catholics" and women's ordination--which was referred to in the document as a "matter of justice".
If it's just the case that the "conservative" Catholics simply didn't show up to give their voice, then what does that say about the skew of the data collected and the validity of the conclusions arrived at?
Peter said that Jewish Christians could eat pork and gentile converts didn’t need circumcision. The church evolves and changes that’s why it is so successful. One minute Christian’s are being martyred the next minute the successors of Peter are burning Christian’s alive. Change or die