I tried to participate in my Parish’s “listening” sessions. Even though most parishes accepted submitting the questioners online, mine didn’t. For reasons beyond my control, I could not attend to these sessions (there were only two) in person. However, even if I did, I felt most questions were above my pay grade. I will say that I have under my belt many accredited courses on theology and ecclesiolgy, plus some post-graduate courses on Theology with a concentration in Catechetics, so I a dare to say I am somewhat qualified to answer the qustions. Other questions seemed to appeal to my feelings, which, in my view, have no place on my opinions about the Curch. For these reasons, I have little confidence in the laity’s input. Also, as you, I fail to understand what Synod on Synodality means.
Also think of how the meeting structure distorted who was able to come and have their voice heard?
This is a generalization, but for the most part, who comes to "meetings" and "listening sessions" at 7pm on a weekday night?
* older people without children at home, who in among practicing Catholics, at least in the West, tend to be far more liberal and who still think being groovy means "change."
* affluent professionals with regular schedules and academics who love meetings and conferences, both groups of people with an, er, "professional interest" in "change."
* activists who are motivated to agitate for "change."
Who doesn't come?
* young parents with family duties, whose grounding in the real world, commitment to serious obligations, and a need for stability to meet those obligations tends to mitigate a vanity interest in "change."
* the stalwart faithful who love the teachings of the Church and therefore have no desire for "change."
"Listening" sessions should have been integrated into the regular parish ministries. Imagine how much different the responses would have been if the "listeners" had come to a regular Wednesday morning Walking with Purpose meeting? A meeting of local homeschool or Regina Caeli families? An HSA meeting for the parents of students at the parish school? Or if sessions had been held after regular Sunday or weekday masses, with coffee and donuts and - imagine it - *childcare*?
I think you would have gotten much, much different results.
I suppose "doing life together" is something I heard more back when I was an evangelical. It was used in a similar way to "fellowshipping" - a sort of nexus of meeting frequently outside church, bearing one another's burdens both spiritually and practically, and being raw and honest with each other about struggles, doubts, etc. I loved the idea of it, but the wording of it annoyed me for some reason. Like you said, sets the teeth on edge. (And, sadly, the reality of it only occasionally lived up to the promise of the idea. As it turns out, being raw and honest with each other is pretty difficult, and it gets increasingly so the more people you attempt to include in it.)
I wonder if a lot of the "purpose" of the synod is to give those within who harbor views hostile to her a chance to raise their hands high, make their true views known, loud and proud, so that, when the process is done and the Church has reaffirmed her ancient beliefs she can say:
a) We listened to you.
b) We know who you are.
When you have to sift wheat from chaff you have to shake the sieve. We are being shaken to bring the chaff to the top so it can be separated.
It won't be Francis to take the next steps. But with the disorder in the Church, the schism in global Anglicanism, the complete collapse of mainline / liberal Christianity in both Europe and North America, the firey rise of Charismatic Evangelicalism across the globe, and the rise of Christian Africa, I highly doubt that a majority of cardinals in the next conclave are going to think "Yes, lets elect someone who is into WomenPriests and Gay Stuff, that should really bring some unity and growth and make things better."
I just think that when you look at the big picture the most likely outcome of all of this is a reaffirmation of perennial Church teaching, but in a more evangelical and dynamic way.
The process is unnerving, granted. But I try to think logically when I feel nervous about it, and I ask myself:
Will teachings that even Francis has bluntly affirmed be suddenly changed in ways that, while popular with the European and American Church Professional Class, would be met with fierce opposition by the vast majority of the faithful global Church and lead to possible schism?
No.
Will the next conclave or pope look to Justin Welby and think "Yes, let's alienate Africa and Asia and create problems just like Canterbury's for ourselves?"
No.
And most important: Will the Gates of Hell prevail?
NO.
Because *Jesus said so.*
The Church proved faithful through the Arian controversy, through the Reformation, through the Sexual Revolution. The Church said "NO" to the pressure to water down the doctrine of the Trinity in the face of persecution. The Church said "NO" to the pressure to destroy her teachings on faith and grace even when it meant the loss of almost the entire Germanic and Nordic world. The Church said "NO" to the excesses of Enlightenment even as nuns and priests were guillotined and the First Daughter was lost to Le Revolution. The Church shocked the world and said "NO" to contraception and held fast even when majorities of the faith and the theological establishment revolted in response.
With a 2000 year history of fidelity in the face of schisms, violence, and opposition, I honestly think it is silly to think the Church is going to be like "Sure, bless the Gay Stuff and ordain Ladies because the people who came to the meeting over the last three years really want us to."
Ten years of Francis is not going to undo over thirty years of John Paul and Benedict.
Three years of meetings isn't going to undo 2000 years of fidelity.
"Could a future pope decide that synodality as it is currently being tested isn’t the most apt way of 'being Church'? If we really accept that the current process isn’t just a noble experiment in ecclesiology by Francis, but an expression of the divine will, it would seem not."
If the divine will could express to Pope Francis that "synodality" in its contemporary form is the most apt way of "being Church," after 2,000+ years, then it wouldn't at all be surprising (from the God of Surprises) that the divine will would express to the next Pope that synodality is not at all the most apt way of "being Church."
Question for the historians: has any other papacy come as close to the current one in flirting with the idea of the Holy Father as the oracle of the Holy Spirit?
The theologians of the 16th century saw the Church, including the Pope's who led it, as being guided by the Holy Spirit so that all the Church rules and regulations opposed by the reformers were actually imposed by the Holy Spirit and therefore the reformers were opposing God.
It's interesting. I was under the impression that, historically, the claim was that the pope was protecting an already-revealed deposit of faith, and perhaps the Holy Spirit was protecting him from going off the rails with respect to that task. But the notion of the pope as an oracle receiving *new* revelations and mandates from the Holy Spirit to change the Church would seem to be something of a novelty.
You and Sue are both correct I believe. The popes from ~1100s to ~1700s assumed an authority, primarily temporal, that would make the most radical modern worshiper of papal authority blush. That said they saw their authority as ordered by and in service of the Tradition handed down to them.
You can see that in the controversial ways that power was/is exercised. The popes of history tended to cause controversy with the exercise of their temporal power. This modern pope tends to create controversy by bringing into question, even if typically at edges, the deposit of faith.
Modern people engaging in papolatry fail to understand that the Pope's authority flows from the very deposit of faith many of them want to undermine.
Actually, many of the Catholic controversialists were conciliarists who believed a council had more authority than the Pope. But they also argued that changing conditions in the Church could lead to changes in Church law and had done so in the past under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
If one believes the Holy Spirit still guides the Church to all righteousness in accordance with the needs of the times, which is what the Catholic controversialists claimed, then it's totally relevant.
That’s actually a pretty routine assumption for many many historical moments in the history of Christendom. It comes most intensely in times of very acute conflict and strife such as the whole fiasco with Henry II (I think, could have been a Frederick) and the Holy Roman Empire, the Protestant reformation, all the drama of renaissance Italy…
Archbishop Pierre choosing multiple times to use that term "being church" is maybe the most unhelpful thing he could have said in his address (putting aside for the moment all the other problematic things about this synodal process and it's potential for upheaval in the church's eternal teachings).
That term is, and always has been (since at least the 1970's or 80's), a clear code word and signal for liberal & progressive Catholics who have a clear mission and goal to change many church teachings (especially sexual and marriage teachings), put women and lay people onto the altar to share in the priestly ministry at Mass, and to tear down beautiful stained glass windows & stone statues of saints in favor of felt banners, abstract art, and carpeting throughout our churches.
Lord please come and save us from this synodal process that threatens to wreck your Holy Church!
Trust me it won’t matter what Archbishop Pierre said. The Bishops are now laser focused on Communal Revival and the synod will take the same place it has - at the end of the list. I don’t know why our canonists spend so much time questioning the motivation of our Pope or his longevity. He was placed in our midst by the Holy Spirit ( so we are told) so maybe we should be a litt more attentive to where he is going with this. I am personally sick of the same old,same old,so I’m willing to give Francis an ear.
An excellent analysis, yet it is clear that the great majority of bishops, priests, and young people in the US have never bought into, and never will, synodality. In part, this is because in the US we are already synodal with pastoral and finance councils in parishes. We have already gone far beyond synodality, by turning over many of our Catholic institutions to lay boards with minimal episcopal oversight. It is also because the marketing and promotion of the synod is representative of the worst we went through in the 70s and 80s.
Synodality will remain nothing more than a term used to give lip service to the Bergolian papacy because it is, in one way a nonsensical 70s idea that we've already found wanting, and also because we've been doing synodality (and more) for decades.
If we have been practicing synodality for decades, then I totally have misunderstood it. The church in the USA is so far removed from synodality,I dare say we would need a total cleansing of the temple- all bishops gone- and a new breed established to really carry on the work of the synod- NOT totally ignore it or give it a nod and a wink.
The question for most is, "What is synodality?" Is it:
1) a vague notion of a very small percentage of Catholics getting together to talk and share our thoughts and feelings that then get turned into a document that becomes another document that becomes another document, that is then produced as a word salad filled with vague inspirations and a tinge of a threat to change dogma?
2) praying, engaging broadly among lay people, religious, deacons, priests, and bishops, and working together in all aspects of the Church while being informed and guided by doctrine?
3) something else?
I contend that the second definition of synodality is true synodality and that the Church in the US has been doing this for 50 years, and we are better than any other group of Catholics in the world. How many lay people work in the Church? How many parishes have parish, finance, and school councils? How many Catholic colleges and universities are run by lay boards? Our chanceries are filled with lay people who make decisions and impact the Church every day. Our bishops have instituted diocesan pastoral councils.
But if you think synodality is best defined as the first definition, or something else, then yes, their should be a change. Of course, we would then cease to be the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ founded.
It seems to me that any ‘good’ endeavor involves the Holy Spirit, if it’s for the glory of the Lord. So why would the Church (even if sadly imperfectly managed at this time) call the faithful to work towards this noble goal — unless it is to challenge us all to truly work more sincerely in our faith in a world that appears more and more to be loosing any faith in God.
Could our canonists clarify if October's meeting is still a Synod of Bishops? Those who are not bishops will be able to vote and I understand 'of bishops' has been dropped from official documents.
This article could benefit from more direct quotation of the archbishop's speech. "It sounded like..." is not enough. Give us the text and let us interpret it alongside you.
“Synod on synodality” makes me think of a “committee on committees”. An exercise in “busyness” that accomplishes nothing, sows confusion, fosters disobedience, and “makes a mess”. The parish level execution was a joke, and to think that that multiplied worldwide will result in some cohesive conclusion that benefits Mother Church—well, take a look at Germany. To the pope and bishops—quit trying to reinvent the Church to fit the changing winds of each generation. Preach the gospel (including the part about repentance) in season and out of season and let God take care of the rest. Strong arming the Holy Spirit is futile.
I wonder how much of this is part of the ongoing misunderstanding of the synodal process currently underway.
1. When people hear the term "synod," they seems to associate it with governance as in the Orthodox Church or other Christian ecclesial communities. The synodality that we seem to be talking about, however, is not so much about governance as it is about an orientation towards communal discernment, a collective listening to the movements of the Holy Spirit at work in the Church (understood as the Body of Christ, not merely the hierarchy). Synodality is therefore not about changing things that cannot be changed, but about discovering anew ways of presenting the truths of our experience of the risen Christ (especially through our faith) to a rapidly changed/changing world. How does our experience of the one true God who died and rose for us inform how we express the faith entrusted to us for the present and future through the Church? My own criticism of this process is that while in theory it is very much in line with how we "be Church," it also assumes that everyone involved is praying and is able to discern (usually through regular conversation with a spiritual director) the movements of the Holy Spirit from the distractions of the Enemy of Human Nature or even one's own wishes. The reality is that many, if not most (the cynical would go so far as to say almost all), involved in the synodal process do not meet the basic requirement of participation.
2. Especially in a democratic society, we are habituated into thinking that when someone is asking for our input or opinion, it's because we are an active agent in the decision-making (i.e., a democracy). Here it would be helpful to understand the Holy Father in the context of his Ignatian background. In Ignatian communal discernment, a group of people share how they've discerned the Holy Spirit to be at work. However, this is always a consultative process not a deliberative one. The members of the group are providing data for the chief discerner, who makes the final decision. The chief discerner is such because he (or she) has a broader view of what's going on due to his position either as the leader of the Jesuit community or as the head of the apostolic work. Majority rule does not apply in Ignatian discernment! It is very possible that even if the majority of the group discerns the Holy Spirit to be working in a particular way, the chief discerner will go in a different direction based on other inputs he is privy to that others are not. Ignatian discernment is always oriented towards what is more conducive for the glory of God, not popular opinion.
3. Synodality and the pope aside, and not having the full text of the nuncio's speech, it sounds like the point he's trying to make is not that the Holy Father has some gnostic knowledge of where God wants the Church to go. Rather, that the Holy Spirit at work in the Second Vatican Council has pointed out the need for greater involvement of the entire Church as the Body of Christ in living out our ecclesial mission. Rooted in our universal call to holiness, the Council Fathers have asked that we find ways to make this more a reality in our lived experience. The synodality that the Holy Father has proposed is not an instance of "special powers" unique to him as a person or the office, rather, it seems like he's trying to implement this call from the Council in ways that have not yet been fully realized (or even explored) in the decades since the closing of Vatican 2.
1. I could not get JD’s French accent out of my head reading Pierre’s quotes…
2. I have a distinct feeling that the Eucharistic revival will do much more for the American Church than the synod will.
3. I cannot remember which episode of Yes Minister it was that featured the infinite regress of committees but you Yanks should watch all of it! It’s the English equivalent of The West Wing but it’s actually a comedy and is insightful for the European Parliamentary democracy dynamics that actually influences the way Vatican departments run in a sideways way.
I tried to participate in my Parish’s “listening” sessions. Even though most parishes accepted submitting the questioners online, mine didn’t. For reasons beyond my control, I could not attend to these sessions (there were only two) in person. However, even if I did, I felt most questions were above my pay grade. I will say that I have under my belt many accredited courses on theology and ecclesiolgy, plus some post-graduate courses on Theology with a concentration in Catechetics, so I a dare to say I am somewhat qualified to answer the qustions. Other questions seemed to appeal to my feelings, which, in my view, have no place on my opinions about the Curch. For these reasons, I have little confidence in the laity’s input. Also, as you, I fail to understand what Synod on Synodality means.
Also think of how the meeting structure distorted who was able to come and have their voice heard?
This is a generalization, but for the most part, who comes to "meetings" and "listening sessions" at 7pm on a weekday night?
* older people without children at home, who in among practicing Catholics, at least in the West, tend to be far more liberal and who still think being groovy means "change."
* affluent professionals with regular schedules and academics who love meetings and conferences, both groups of people with an, er, "professional interest" in "change."
* activists who are motivated to agitate for "change."
Who doesn't come?
* young parents with family duties, whose grounding in the real world, commitment to serious obligations, and a need for stability to meet those obligations tends to mitigate a vanity interest in "change."
* the stalwart faithful who love the teachings of the Church and therefore have no desire for "change."
"Listening" sessions should have been integrated into the regular parish ministries. Imagine how much different the responses would have been if the "listeners" had come to a regular Wednesday morning Walking with Purpose meeting? A meeting of local homeschool or Regina Caeli families? An HSA meeting for the parents of students at the parish school? Or if sessions had been held after regular Sunday or weekday masses, with coffee and donuts and - imagine it - *childcare*?
I think you would have gotten much, much different results.
Whoever came up with the phrasing of "being Church" should go jump in the same lake as should the folks who use "fellowship" as a verb.
"I feel so #blessed by #beingchurch and #fellowshipping and #doinglifetogether with all these awesome folks"
I don't mind "fellowship' and have never heard of "doinglifetogether" but "being Church" sets my teeth on edge every time.
I suppose "doing life together" is something I heard more back when I was an evangelical. It was used in a similar way to "fellowshipping" - a sort of nexus of meeting frequently outside church, bearing one another's burdens both spiritually and practically, and being raw and honest with each other about struggles, doubts, etc. I loved the idea of it, but the wording of it annoyed me for some reason. Like you said, sets the teeth on edge. (And, sadly, the reality of it only occasionally lived up to the promise of the idea. As it turns out, being raw and honest with each other is pretty difficult, and it gets increasingly so the more people you attempt to include in it.)
Ha! About to make the same comment.
Honestly, I'm still so confused about the entire purpose of this synod, what it hopes to accomplish, and why regular Catholics should care.
Me too. I just don’t get it. The main things can’t change so why act like they can? Just causes strife.
I'm glad I'm not alone here!
You're not alone at all.
Emily get in line. Absolutely no preparation by our so called leaders, namely bishops
I wonder if a lot of the "purpose" of the synod is to give those within who harbor views hostile to her a chance to raise their hands high, make their true views known, loud and proud, so that, when the process is done and the Church has reaffirmed her ancient beliefs she can say:
a) We listened to you.
b) We know who you are.
When you have to sift wheat from chaff you have to shake the sieve. We are being shaken to bring the chaff to the top so it can be separated.
It won't be Francis to take the next steps. But with the disorder in the Church, the schism in global Anglicanism, the complete collapse of mainline / liberal Christianity in both Europe and North America, the firey rise of Charismatic Evangelicalism across the globe, and the rise of Christian Africa, I highly doubt that a majority of cardinals in the next conclave are going to think "Yes, lets elect someone who is into WomenPriests and Gay Stuff, that should really bring some unity and growth and make things better."
I just think that when you look at the big picture the most likely outcome of all of this is a reaffirmation of perennial Church teaching, but in a more evangelical and dynamic way.
The process is unnerving, granted. But I try to think logically when I feel nervous about it, and I ask myself:
Will teachings that even Francis has bluntly affirmed be suddenly changed in ways that, while popular with the European and American Church Professional Class, would be met with fierce opposition by the vast majority of the faithful global Church and lead to possible schism?
No.
Will the next conclave or pope look to Justin Welby and think "Yes, let's alienate Africa and Asia and create problems just like Canterbury's for ourselves?"
No.
And most important: Will the Gates of Hell prevail?
NO.
Because *Jesus said so.*
The Church proved faithful through the Arian controversy, through the Reformation, through the Sexual Revolution. The Church said "NO" to the pressure to water down the doctrine of the Trinity in the face of persecution. The Church said "NO" to the pressure to destroy her teachings on faith and grace even when it meant the loss of almost the entire Germanic and Nordic world. The Church said "NO" to the excesses of Enlightenment even as nuns and priests were guillotined and the First Daughter was lost to Le Revolution. The Church shocked the world and said "NO" to contraception and held fast even when majorities of the faith and the theological establishment revolted in response.
With a 2000 year history of fidelity in the face of schisms, violence, and opposition, I honestly think it is silly to think the Church is going to be like "Sure, bless the Gay Stuff and ordain Ladies because the people who came to the meeting over the last three years really want us to."
Ten years of Francis is not going to undo over thirty years of John Paul and Benedict.
Three years of meetings isn't going to undo 2000 years of fidelity.
The Holy Spirit knows what he is doing.
"Could a future pope decide that synodality as it is currently being tested isn’t the most apt way of 'being Church'? If we really accept that the current process isn’t just a noble experiment in ecclesiology by Francis, but an expression of the divine will, it would seem not."
If the divine will could express to Pope Francis that "synodality" in its contemporary form is the most apt way of "being Church," after 2,000+ years, then it wouldn't at all be surprising (from the God of Surprises) that the divine will would express to the next Pope that synodality is not at all the most apt way of "being Church."
based bishop
Question for the historians: has any other papacy come as close to the current one in flirting with the idea of the Holy Father as the oracle of the Holy Spirit?
The theologians of the 16th century saw the Church, including the Pope's who led it, as being guided by the Holy Spirit so that all the Church rules and regulations opposed by the reformers were actually imposed by the Holy Spirit and therefore the reformers were opposing God.
It's interesting. I was under the impression that, historically, the claim was that the pope was protecting an already-revealed deposit of faith, and perhaps the Holy Spirit was protecting him from going off the rails with respect to that task. But the notion of the pope as an oracle receiving *new* revelations and mandates from the Holy Spirit to change the Church would seem to be something of a novelty.
You and Sue are both correct I believe. The popes from ~1100s to ~1700s assumed an authority, primarily temporal, that would make the most radical modern worshiper of papal authority blush. That said they saw their authority as ordered by and in service of the Tradition handed down to them.
You can see that in the controversial ways that power was/is exercised. The popes of history tended to cause controversy with the exercise of their temporal power. This modern pope tends to create controversy by bringing into question, even if typically at edges, the deposit of faith.
Modern people engaging in papolatry fail to understand that the Pope's authority flows from the very deposit of faith many of them want to undermine.
Actually, many of the Catholic controversialists were conciliarists who believed a council had more authority than the Pope. But they also argued that changing conditions in the Church could lead to changes in Church law and had done so in the past under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
They believed the changes were inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church in all righteousness.
That's true but sort of beside the point.
If one believes the Holy Spirit still guides the Church to all righteousness in accordance with the needs of the times, which is what the Catholic controversialists claimed, then it's totally relevant.
That’s actually a pretty routine assumption for many many historical moments in the history of Christendom. It comes most intensely in times of very acute conflict and strife such as the whole fiasco with Henry II (I think, could have been a Frederick) and the Holy Roman Empire, the Protestant reformation, all the drama of renaissance Italy…
I know that the decriminalisation of cannabis is widespread in the US but this is amazing.
Archbishop Pierre choosing multiple times to use that term "being church" is maybe the most unhelpful thing he could have said in his address (putting aside for the moment all the other problematic things about this synodal process and it's potential for upheaval in the church's eternal teachings).
That term is, and always has been (since at least the 1970's or 80's), a clear code word and signal for liberal & progressive Catholics who have a clear mission and goal to change many church teachings (especially sexual and marriage teachings), put women and lay people onto the altar to share in the priestly ministry at Mass, and to tear down beautiful stained glass windows & stone statues of saints in favor of felt banners, abstract art, and carpeting throughout our churches.
Lord please come and save us from this synodal process that threatens to wreck your Holy Church!
Trust me it won’t matter what Archbishop Pierre said. The Bishops are now laser focused on Communal Revival and the synod will take the same place it has - at the end of the list. I don’t know why our canonists spend so much time questioning the motivation of our Pope or his longevity. He was placed in our midst by the Holy Spirit ( so we are told) so maybe we should be a litt more attentive to where he is going with this. I am personally sick of the same old,same old,so I’m willing to give Francis an ear.
An excellent analysis, yet it is clear that the great majority of bishops, priests, and young people in the US have never bought into, and never will, synodality. In part, this is because in the US we are already synodal with pastoral and finance councils in parishes. We have already gone far beyond synodality, by turning over many of our Catholic institutions to lay boards with minimal episcopal oversight. It is also because the marketing and promotion of the synod is representative of the worst we went through in the 70s and 80s.
Synodality will remain nothing more than a term used to give lip service to the Bergolian papacy because it is, in one way a nonsensical 70s idea that we've already found wanting, and also because we've been doing synodality (and more) for decades.
If we have been practicing synodality for decades, then I totally have misunderstood it. The church in the USA is so far removed from synodality,I dare say we would need a total cleansing of the temple- all bishops gone- and a new breed established to really carry on the work of the synod- NOT totally ignore it or give it a nod and a wink.
The question for most is, "What is synodality?" Is it:
1) a vague notion of a very small percentage of Catholics getting together to talk and share our thoughts and feelings that then get turned into a document that becomes another document that becomes another document, that is then produced as a word salad filled with vague inspirations and a tinge of a threat to change dogma?
2) praying, engaging broadly among lay people, religious, deacons, priests, and bishops, and working together in all aspects of the Church while being informed and guided by doctrine?
3) something else?
I contend that the second definition of synodality is true synodality and that the Church in the US has been doing this for 50 years, and we are better than any other group of Catholics in the world. How many lay people work in the Church? How many parishes have parish, finance, and school councils? How many Catholic colleges and universities are run by lay boards? Our chanceries are filled with lay people who make decisions and impact the Church every day. Our bishops have instituted diocesan pastoral councils.
But if you think synodality is best defined as the first definition, or something else, then yes, their should be a change. Of course, we would then cease to be the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ founded.
It seems to me that any ‘good’ endeavor involves the Holy Spirit, if it’s for the glory of the Lord. So why would the Church (even if sadly imperfectly managed at this time) call the faithful to work towards this noble goal — unless it is to challenge us all to truly work more sincerely in our faith in a world that appears more and more to be loosing any faith in God.
Could our canonists clarify if October's meeting is still a Synod of Bishops? Those who are not bishops will be able to vote and I understand 'of bishops' has been dropped from official documents.
This article could benefit from more direct quotation of the archbishop's speech. "It sounded like..." is not enough. Give us the text and let us interpret it alongside you.
“Synod on synodality” makes me think of a “committee on committees”. An exercise in “busyness” that accomplishes nothing, sows confusion, fosters disobedience, and “makes a mess”. The parish level execution was a joke, and to think that that multiplied worldwide will result in some cohesive conclusion that benefits Mother Church—well, take a look at Germany. To the pope and bishops—quit trying to reinvent the Church to fit the changing winds of each generation. Preach the gospel (including the part about repentance) in season and out of season and let God take care of the rest. Strong arming the Holy Spirit is futile.
I wonder how much of this is part of the ongoing misunderstanding of the synodal process currently underway.
1. When people hear the term "synod," they seems to associate it with governance as in the Orthodox Church or other Christian ecclesial communities. The synodality that we seem to be talking about, however, is not so much about governance as it is about an orientation towards communal discernment, a collective listening to the movements of the Holy Spirit at work in the Church (understood as the Body of Christ, not merely the hierarchy). Synodality is therefore not about changing things that cannot be changed, but about discovering anew ways of presenting the truths of our experience of the risen Christ (especially through our faith) to a rapidly changed/changing world. How does our experience of the one true God who died and rose for us inform how we express the faith entrusted to us for the present and future through the Church? My own criticism of this process is that while in theory it is very much in line with how we "be Church," it also assumes that everyone involved is praying and is able to discern (usually through regular conversation with a spiritual director) the movements of the Holy Spirit from the distractions of the Enemy of Human Nature or even one's own wishes. The reality is that many, if not most (the cynical would go so far as to say almost all), involved in the synodal process do not meet the basic requirement of participation.
2. Especially in a democratic society, we are habituated into thinking that when someone is asking for our input or opinion, it's because we are an active agent in the decision-making (i.e., a democracy). Here it would be helpful to understand the Holy Father in the context of his Ignatian background. In Ignatian communal discernment, a group of people share how they've discerned the Holy Spirit to be at work. However, this is always a consultative process not a deliberative one. The members of the group are providing data for the chief discerner, who makes the final decision. The chief discerner is such because he (or she) has a broader view of what's going on due to his position either as the leader of the Jesuit community or as the head of the apostolic work. Majority rule does not apply in Ignatian discernment! It is very possible that even if the majority of the group discerns the Holy Spirit to be working in a particular way, the chief discerner will go in a different direction based on other inputs he is privy to that others are not. Ignatian discernment is always oriented towards what is more conducive for the glory of God, not popular opinion.
3. Synodality and the pope aside, and not having the full text of the nuncio's speech, it sounds like the point he's trying to make is not that the Holy Father has some gnostic knowledge of where God wants the Church to go. Rather, that the Holy Spirit at work in the Second Vatican Council has pointed out the need for greater involvement of the entire Church as the Body of Christ in living out our ecclesial mission. Rooted in our universal call to holiness, the Council Fathers have asked that we find ways to make this more a reality in our lived experience. The synodality that the Holy Father has proposed is not an instance of "special powers" unique to him as a person or the office, rather, it seems like he's trying to implement this call from the Council in ways that have not yet been fully realized (or even explored) in the decades since the closing of Vatican 2.
1. I could not get JD’s French accent out of my head reading Pierre’s quotes…
2. I have a distinct feeling that the Eucharistic revival will do much more for the American Church than the synod will.
3. I cannot remember which episode of Yes Minister it was that featured the infinite regress of committees but you Yanks should watch all of it! It’s the English equivalent of The West Wing but it’s actually a comedy and is insightful for the European Parliamentary democracy dynamics that actually influences the way Vatican departments run in a sideways way.