The small group format of the last several years seems just utterly infantilizing.
Compared to a more parliamentary style consultation - a chairman presiding as individuals speak briefly but earnestly to the whole body - little table sessions feels less consultative and more orchestrated.
Agreed - I wasn't particularly hopefully that anything would come of this consistory when it was announced but after hearing earlier today about the expected format I am definitely not expecting anything momentous to come directly out of this.
Why would you expect anything momentous to come from a consistory?
That is not why they exist. They have no ecclesial authority. At its core, it is simply a chance for the Cardinals to get to know each other.
Having been part of a number of such meetings in the military, government, academia and the Church, absolutely nothing results from "a chairman presiding as individuals speak briefly but earnestly to the whole body." The only thing that happens is people read their prepared speeches that NO ONE listens to. Let me repeat that: Across counties, and across radically different organizations, no one listens to those types of presentations. Turn on CSPAN and watch the House or the Senate. You will find people reading their prepared remarks while the rest of those present have their eyes closed, snoozing.
The past conclave provides a clear example: I have heard several Cardinals say that no one really listened to the prepared statements from other Cardinals in the General Congregations. All the important discussions prior to the conclave itself took place in small groups, usually over meals. It is in the small groups that the real work is done.
This is also true in the presbyterates. Look closely at the priest meetings at the diocesan convocations. As soon as the usual priests get up to say their few (many) words their fellow priests groan, and/or roll their eyes, and/or look to the heavens, and usually pull out their cell phones under the table.
I will ask Ed the question: In Whitehall where did the real work take place? While people are reading their speeches in the House of Commons, or in the committees, or more likely in the (dearly departed) Strangers?
1: who is the audience in any of these events? Speeches in Congress have an audience of the American people (on TV, in ads, on website), not Congressmen. Presumably, any public comments from the cardinals would have the (attentive) audience of one (regardless of how boring any other cardinals find it), the one who called the gathering to hear those comments.
2: insofar as at least one of the purposes, if not the major one, of the college is as a consultative body, it would seem the reason to call such a gathering would be to hear advice, comments, insights from various cardinals, not read massaged summaries by committee.
3: that important work gets done in those spaces is conceded. But those spaces arise organically around other institutions. Same vibe in conferences. Yea, networking happens at coffee, not during the conference talks. But this is artificially trying to create those organic spaces. Maybe the real work in Parliament is done at the bars - but you still need the speeches in the House of Commoms. Trying to replace the House of Commons with the King’s Small Group Fun Time House would not profuce the same effect.
4: in any case, I said parliamentary-style and was thinking of parliamentary debate societies where the Chairman does listen etc etc not a political body where speakers pontificate for the public.
A question I have that the article doesn’t really address, is: Is there any kind of standard “public-facing” document or report that typically comes from this?
It sounds like ordinary consistories usually have observers, so at the very least I would assume those present substantive opportunities for journalistic reports.
But do consistories, whether extraordinary or ordinary, typically result in some kind of material that the faithful can receive and digest? Or is it just, “We all met and got on the same page about some stuff,” and then it’s up to the cardinals in attendance to go out and make decisions independently?
No documents are typically related as a result. Yet its also likely the consistory is not window dressing for inaction either. Leo did not have to hold one, and arguably if he holds one just to ignore them, that makes it worse.
I would not expect any one specific document from this consistory. It is synods, rather than consistories that usually result in apostolic exhortations, such as Pope John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio on the family and Pastores Dabo Vobis on seminary formation, or (more controversially) Pope Francis' Amoris Laetitia on the family. The purpose of extraordinary consistories is for the Holy Father to hear from all the cardinals around the world about how to deal with specific topics, in this case, about evangelization, reform of the Roman Curia, synodality, and liturgical issues. The hope is that the cardinals will be able to inform the Pope and each other about how these topics affect their areas, the concerns of the faithful, religious and the clergy, and proposals on how to address them. I think that Pope Leo truly wants to assess what the important issues, concerns and proposals are. An important question is whether the cardinals themselves understand their people and the issues well enough to give an accurate assessment and wise solutions that are both true to the faith and pastoral to the people.
A much needed and very informative explainer, thanks. Got me thinking - the Vatican Press Office should step up and offer the Faithful these same types of details/background on all Vatican events. It is as if they assume we are already knowledgeable. Do not think their writing style would ever match The Pillar's, nor would I expect them to provide critical analysis. It is just that the Faithful, who have not discovered the Pillar, are at the mercy of the secular media when these events occur. Please keep up your great work.
"Accompanying" the cardinals, I am reading "Evangelii Gaudium" and "Praedicate Evangelium". I am glad that Pope Francis gave us so many words to contemplate Christ's call to each of us to evangelize the world! I think Pope Leo XIV will be clarifying what so many could not seem to see, through the fog of suspicion that seemed to settle on "influencers" in the Church.
I value "The Pillar" so much for helping to clear away that fog.
Thank you, Edgar. This is very informative!
Praying that they allow the Holy Spirit to guide them
The small group format of the last several years seems just utterly infantilizing.
Compared to a more parliamentary style consultation - a chairman presiding as individuals speak briefly but earnestly to the whole body - little table sessions feels less consultative and more orchestrated.
Agreed - I wasn't particularly hopefully that anything would come of this consistory when it was announced but after hearing earlier today about the expected format I am definitely not expecting anything momentous to come directly out of this.
Why would you expect anything momentous to come from a consistory?
That is not why they exist. They have no ecclesial authority. At its core, it is simply a chance for the Cardinals to get to know each other.
Having been part of a number of such meetings in the military, government, academia and the Church, absolutely nothing results from "a chairman presiding as individuals speak briefly but earnestly to the whole body." The only thing that happens is people read their prepared speeches that NO ONE listens to. Let me repeat that: Across counties, and across radically different organizations, no one listens to those types of presentations. Turn on CSPAN and watch the House or the Senate. You will find people reading their prepared remarks while the rest of those present have their eyes closed, snoozing.
The past conclave provides a clear example: I have heard several Cardinals say that no one really listened to the prepared statements from other Cardinals in the General Congregations. All the important discussions prior to the conclave itself took place in small groups, usually over meals. It is in the small groups that the real work is done.
This is also true in the presbyterates. Look closely at the priest meetings at the diocesan convocations. As soon as the usual priests get up to say their few (many) words their fellow priests groan, and/or roll their eyes, and/or look to the heavens, and usually pull out their cell phones under the table.
I will ask Ed the question: In Whitehall where did the real work take place? While people are reading their speeches in the House of Commons, or in the committees, or more likely in the (dearly departed) Strangers?
Spot on.
A few points:
1: who is the audience in any of these events? Speeches in Congress have an audience of the American people (on TV, in ads, on website), not Congressmen. Presumably, any public comments from the cardinals would have the (attentive) audience of one (regardless of how boring any other cardinals find it), the one who called the gathering to hear those comments.
2: insofar as at least one of the purposes, if not the major one, of the college is as a consultative body, it would seem the reason to call such a gathering would be to hear advice, comments, insights from various cardinals, not read massaged summaries by committee.
3: that important work gets done in those spaces is conceded. But those spaces arise organically around other institutions. Same vibe in conferences. Yea, networking happens at coffee, not during the conference talks. But this is artificially trying to create those organic spaces. Maybe the real work in Parliament is done at the bars - but you still need the speeches in the House of Commoms. Trying to replace the House of Commons with the King’s Small Group Fun Time House would not profuce the same effect.
4: in any case, I said parliamentary-style and was thinking of parliamentary debate societies where the Chairman does listen etc etc not a political body where speakers pontificate for the public.
A question I have that the article doesn’t really address, is: Is there any kind of standard “public-facing” document or report that typically comes from this?
It sounds like ordinary consistories usually have observers, so at the very least I would assume those present substantive opportunities for journalistic reports.
But do consistories, whether extraordinary or ordinary, typically result in some kind of material that the faithful can receive and digest? Or is it just, “We all met and got on the same page about some stuff,” and then it’s up to the cardinals in attendance to go out and make decisions independently?
No documents are typically related as a result. Yet its also likely the consistory is not window dressing for inaction either. Leo did not have to hold one, and arguably if he holds one just to ignore them, that makes it worse.
I would not expect any one specific document from this consistory. It is synods, rather than consistories that usually result in apostolic exhortations, such as Pope John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio on the family and Pastores Dabo Vobis on seminary formation, or (more controversially) Pope Francis' Amoris Laetitia on the family. The purpose of extraordinary consistories is for the Holy Father to hear from all the cardinals around the world about how to deal with specific topics, in this case, about evangelization, reform of the Roman Curia, synodality, and liturgical issues. The hope is that the cardinals will be able to inform the Pope and each other about how these topics affect their areas, the concerns of the faithful, religious and the clergy, and proposals on how to address them. I think that Pope Leo truly wants to assess what the important issues, concerns and proposals are. An important question is whether the cardinals themselves understand their people and the issues well enough to give an accurate assessment and wise solutions that are both true to the faith and pastoral to the people.
A much needed and very informative explainer, thanks. Got me thinking - the Vatican Press Office should step up and offer the Faithful these same types of details/background on all Vatican events. It is as if they assume we are already knowledgeable. Do not think their writing style would ever match The Pillar's, nor would I expect them to provide critical analysis. It is just that the Faithful, who have not discovered the Pillar, are at the mercy of the secular media when these events occur. Please keep up your great work.
Does anyone have a sense what the liturgy aspect could possibly be about?
Sadly, I guess Cardinal Porras from Venezuela will not be in attendance. Will he, Edgar?
He won't, unfortunately.
Me da mucho, particularmente en las circunstancias actuales.
"Accompanying" the cardinals, I am reading "Evangelii Gaudium" and "Praedicate Evangelium". I am glad that Pope Francis gave us so many words to contemplate Christ's call to each of us to evangelize the world! I think Pope Leo XIV will be clarifying what so many could not seem to see, through the fog of suspicion that seemed to settle on "influencers" in the Church.
I value "The Pillar" so much for helping to clear away that fog.
This seems rather a short duration. Do they really have time to address issues in depth in such a small timeframe?