This is what it looks like when you try to run the Church like a corporation.
Here's the key thing that I'd be willing to bet will be promptly ignored because there's too much invested in this silly process:
"They pointed out, however, that most of the people the Church needs to reach did not participate in the process and it should be kept in mind that the majority of perspectives which were heard came from a similar group of people, that is, individuals who were over 60 years old and who frequently attend Church"
The low participation rate is not surprising, especially for younger folk. The logical conclusion is very people are interested in having some official in the "Church" "listen" to them. Perhaps they don't care or don't trust them, who knows.
Given such a very low participation rate, the validity of the "Synod" is at best questionable. I say let's listen, you say "[silence]", let's call the whole thing off :-).
I participated in something similar a few years back with the local Franciscan Friary as they were seeking input from the community on possible future of the Friary and Retreat Centre. Unfortunately nothing ever came of it (even when things such as a greater focus on things like Adoration were brought up as a way to cultivate and strengthen people's spirituality); it ended feeling like an endevour to validate pre-conceived ideas that were presented (as questions).
This entire Synodal process felt very much the same to me, which felt like this was a predetermined outcome cloaked in a mask of consultation. Out of the entire population of my Diocese of some 580,000 Catholics, maybe there was 10,000 people total who contributed to the process (based on the Diocese report site), which is well below 2% (1.7%), so no where near the numbers they were seeking.
Yes, in the end I chose not to participate because it just felt like a forgone conclusion. I just can't shake the feeling that my perspective and thoughts are not welcome and the results are predetermined. Maybe too cynical of me, but it's just how I feel about the state of the Church these days.
One thing not mentioned in article is language. The Church has developed an official vocabulary and terminology that is incomprehensible and impenetrable to the lay reader. I say this as a corporate lawyer used to working through long, dense documents filled with arcane language. But I read official statements from the Vatican or USCCB and I have virtually no idea what they are trying to express. The same applies to the synodal process. I missed our parish sessions so I tried to fill out the online questions. I did not understand what they were asking about so I just gave up. I suspect a lot of people felt the same way. The questions just did not address issues that concern me (and I think others) in a direct way and were just not engaging.
I took the survey that Jimmy Akin linked. This is a push poll. "Which of the following groups is the Church mean to, pick 3: women, LGBTQ+, immigrants". "What's the most important issue in the Church today, pick 3: women in leadership, accepting LGBTQ people, supporting immigrants". Come on, this isn't serious.
This may be old news, but I have to remark that the Synod's logo has by far the worst typeface (if you can dignify it with that name) that I have ever seen. People like to complain about Comic Sans, but that font looks beautiful next to this one. It's especially jarring to see childlike scrawl used for the word "synodal," which few if any English-speaking children know.
I just read the report from Anchorage-Juneau. Call me jaded, but I find it very hard to believe that the report captures the prayerful input of the majority. Having led one of the listening sessions at my parish, I can attest to the fact that most people were quite careful and thoughtful in their responses, concerned for the marginalized but clearly wanting better catechesis and formation for Catholics in the pews. The report claimed that “the majority” expressed their desire for doctrinal changes in church practice surrounding marriage, sexuality, and the role of women. I was gutted when I read it.
What is the state of the Church in Antarctica? I would love to see an explainer on that
This is what it looks like when you try to run the Church like a corporation.
Here's the key thing that I'd be willing to bet will be promptly ignored because there's too much invested in this silly process:
"They pointed out, however, that most of the people the Church needs to reach did not participate in the process and it should be kept in mind that the majority of perspectives which were heard came from a similar group of people, that is, individuals who were over 60 years old and who frequently attend Church"
The low participation rate is not surprising, especially for younger folk. The logical conclusion is very people are interested in having some official in the "Church" "listen" to them. Perhaps they don't care or don't trust them, who knows.
Given such a very low participation rate, the validity of the "Synod" is at best questionable. I say let's listen, you say "[silence]", let's call the whole thing off :-).
I participated in something similar a few years back with the local Franciscan Friary as they were seeking input from the community on possible future of the Friary and Retreat Centre. Unfortunately nothing ever came of it (even when things such as a greater focus on things like Adoration were brought up as a way to cultivate and strengthen people's spirituality); it ended feeling like an endevour to validate pre-conceived ideas that were presented (as questions).
This entire Synodal process felt very much the same to me, which felt like this was a predetermined outcome cloaked in a mask of consultation. Out of the entire population of my Diocese of some 580,000 Catholics, maybe there was 10,000 people total who contributed to the process (based on the Diocese report site), which is well below 2% (1.7%), so no where near the numbers they were seeking.
Yes, in the end I chose not to participate because it just felt like a forgone conclusion. I just can't shake the feeling that my perspective and thoughts are not welcome and the results are predetermined. Maybe too cynical of me, but it's just how I feel about the state of the Church these days.
One thing not mentioned in article is language. The Church has developed an official vocabulary and terminology that is incomprehensible and impenetrable to the lay reader. I say this as a corporate lawyer used to working through long, dense documents filled with arcane language. But I read official statements from the Vatican or USCCB and I have virtually no idea what they are trying to express. The same applies to the synodal process. I missed our parish sessions so I tried to fill out the online questions. I did not understand what they were asking about so I just gave up. I suspect a lot of people felt the same way. The questions just did not address issues that concern me (and I think others) in a direct way and were just not engaging.
I took the survey that Jimmy Akin linked. This is a push poll. "Which of the following groups is the Church mean to, pick 3: women, LGBTQ+, immigrants". "What's the most important issue in the Church today, pick 3: women in leadership, accepting LGBTQ people, supporting immigrants". Come on, this isn't serious.
This may be old news, but I have to remark that the Synod's logo has by far the worst typeface (if you can dignify it with that name) that I have ever seen. People like to complain about Comic Sans, but that font looks beautiful next to this one. It's especially jarring to see childlike scrawl used for the word "synodal," which few if any English-speaking children know.
I just read the report from Anchorage-Juneau. Call me jaded, but I find it very hard to believe that the report captures the prayerful input of the majority. Having led one of the listening sessions at my parish, I can attest to the fact that most people were quite careful and thoughtful in their responses, concerned for the marginalized but clearly wanting better catechesis and formation for Catholics in the pews. The report claimed that “the majority” expressed their desire for doctrinal changes in church practice surrounding marriage, sexuality, and the role of women. I was gutted when I read it.