With the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops soon to get underway, there’s a certain question that needs to be faced: Isn’t a Synod on Synodality—which is what this one is supposed to be—a rather embarrassingly self-regarding exercise for the Church at a time when world crises abound, from war in Ukraine to famine in Sub-Sahara Africa?
But a defender of the synod might call it unfair even to raise that question. After all, the Church didn’t cause problems like those and in fact it’s doing what it can to alleviate them. Moreover, the Church deserves time, as at a synod, to concentrate on serious questions concerning its own structure and operation.
Granting all that, however, it’s reasonable, even at this late date, to wonder whether “synodality” is precisely the most pressing issue just now. Not only do the world crises just mentioned overshadow it, simply among intra-Church problems that a synod might discuss I’d personally give priority to the shortage of priestly vocations, the virtual disappearance of women’s religious communities, the startling decline in Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence, the growing difficulty of transmitting the faith to the young, and the apathy and religious illiteracy of so many nominal Catholics.
Frankly, I doubt that “synodality” is the answer to any of these things. Which may help explain why expectations and anxieties focused on the Synod on Synodality differ so wildly.
For example: pro-synod journalist Christopher Lamb writes angrily in The Tablet of London about people who might actually have the nerve not to be “converted to the process” of synodality—a process, one might note, that so far has been painfully shaky and amateurish.
At the other end of the spectrum there’s theology professor Michael Hanby declaring in First Things—weeks before the synod begins—that the Synod on Synodality has shown itself to be “the Synod on LGBTQ affirmation and inclusion.”
Both gentlemen may be correct. But I prefer to wait for the synod to happen before passing final judgment on either its process or its product.
Following a plan decreed by Pope Francis, this first session—which will begin October 4 and continue to October 29—will be followed by a second session in October of next year, at which the participants will reach conclusions and make recommendations. Clearly, however, the Pope is looking to the synod to advance his great project of creating a synodal Church, and since Francis will have the last word, we might as well hope the synodal Church will be a good thing rather than a permanent replica of the ramshackle process leading up to the present moment.
To sustain even that conditional optimism, though, it is imperative that the gathering in Rome shows at least some positive results. And that will not happen if the impression emanating from the synod hall is that participants were force-fed predetermined conclusions instead of being allowed to find their way for themselves.
As someone who staffed American delegations at several synods of the past, I know full well that manipulation of the proceedings is entirely possible. In the short run, the manipulators might get the results they want, but in the long run, manipulation will place the launch of the synodal Church under a cloud.
At a minimum, doesn’t synodality require letting people say what they think rather than what someone else would like them to think? Fans of synodality should be hoping that’s the rule at the Synod on Synodality.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Who would doubt that the post-synodal documents have already been drafted. The Kabuki Synods of this pontificate are a tool to invent practices completely divorced from the Deposit of the Faith/Truth, like tolerating concubinage or blessing same-sex unions.
This pontificate ignores Sacred Scripture, Tradition and previous pontificates to spread confusion, error and heteropraxy like a metastatic cancer.
Bingo! . . “But a defender of the synod might call it unfair even to RAISE THAT QUESTION. . ” Might as well call on a
“majority vote” to get people to STOP THINKING at certain
times, so’s the “synod” can proceed and “succeed” according TO PLAN !
Thanks Bob. We are not witnessing this calamity alone. Consider this observation:
The word “transubstantiation” is unrecognized by Silicon Valley software on the very Apple device I am using to type this comment. When I attempt to type “transubstantiation” it is autocorrected as “transgenderism”! And while Tim Cook gets a private powwow with Pope Francis, Cardinals Müller and Burke get fired and shut out of the Vatican.
We must speak up! This pontificate is pandering to Silicon Valley as it foists Protestant practices upon the Catholic Church, especially with Synods…
We need to quit looking at everything as if it were some conspiracy. The specific critique you have can be explained by a simple application of Occam’s Razor. Programmers create autocorrect for words that people are using. Please tell me I am wrong when I say that if you gathered 100 nominal Catholics together one of them would know what “transubstantiation” is. And you probably wouldn’t find 1 in 10,000 non-Catholics that are familiar with the term. And of the small number of people that are familiar with the term, they actually use it on rare occasions. But everybody and his kid brother is talking about transgender issues 24/7. So, I would expect your average programmer to focus on what people are commonly using. That’s just human nature.
“At a minimum, doesn’t synodality require letting people say what they think rather than what someone else would like them to think?” Bingo! .. (also) “But a defender of the synod might call it unfair even to RAISE THAT QUESTION. . ” In which case one might as well call on a
“majority vote” to get people to STOP THINKING at certain
times, so’s the “synod” can proceed and “succeed” according TO PLAN !
Cardinal Cupich is out this week saying: Nothing to be feared from the ancient reality of synods.
His message is: Nothing to be feared from (Catholics blessing) the ancient reality of concubinage and sodomy…
(N.B., my Apple computer software refuses to even help me spell “sodomy.” Nor will it autocorrect most any specifically Catholic Word like Eucharist. Transubstantiation is autocorrected as transgenderism! So the solution of Pope Francis is to pander to the values of Silicon Valley by blessing unions for the friends of Tim Cook. Cook gets an audience, Burke does not! We must wake up!!!)
Expectation and anxiety is rampant. Not a good feature of the great Synod project of Pope Francis. His holiness says those of us who criticize are prophets of doom, driven by ideologies that should remain buried in the past.
That is the heart of issue. We prophets of doom have an implacable desire to remain disciples of Christ. Francis’ Synod on Synodality does not assure us that this walking together doesn’t distance us. We don’t recognize the voice.
Every good leader who wants to accomplish an organizational goal typically gets his “ ducks lined up” to prepare the participants for discussion and acceptance of the desirable result.
Pope Francis has not done this at all. He regrettably still believes in a “top down “ management style that had been repudiated for decades. Where is the acknowledgment of the
of the Church’s many and diverse “stakeholders” besides the bishops? There is none.
If the synod is “ rigged” to conclude its “discernment “ in a certain way to please the Holy Father, then we are seeing a “train wreck “ that will accomplish more distrust and cynicism.
Has anybody involved in the planning of the synod ever considered learning anything from our brothers in the Orthodox Church ‘s not inconsiderable experience in having a synod model for over 2000 years. Probably not.
The Latin Church could learn a lot about from them, but it appears that “not invented here” mode is operational. Is this Church hubris at work? Probably.
Of the world’s crises, we read from the in-step synodophiles: ” After all, the Church didn’t cause problems like those and in fact it’s doing what it can to alleviate them.”
As for causes of crises and their alleviation…in ten or twenty years what will be said of how the synodal rump parliament (so to speak) exacerbated/caused the LGBTQ pandemic? An affliction that mysteriously compounds itself even as it shuns biological reproduction?
“Walking together,” synodophiles first shoot themselves in one foot by inserting the politicized slogan–LGBTQ—now into the language of ecclesial dialogue. Then, second, shoot themselves in the other foot by both announcing that Synodal Weg is a non-synod, and then giving it a role in the upcoming Synod on Synodadrift. Then, third, the same to both feet with Germania’s novelty of combining a synod (of bishops) with a focus group of laity, AND penetrating this groupy posture into the October script in Rome.
Here’s a bit of historical perspective for the blind leading the blind:
“Late marriages and small families became the rule, and men satisfied their sexual instincts by homosexuality or by relations with slaves and prostitutes. This aversion to marriage and the deliberate restriction of the family by the practice of infanticide and abortion was undoubtedly the main cause of the decline of ancient Greece, as Polybius pointed out in the second century B.C. And the same factors were equally powerful in the society of the [Roman] Empire. . . .” (Christopher Dawson, “The Patriarcal Family in History,” The Dynamics of World History, 1962).
Alleviate? Why not the half-truth of mercy divorced from truth? Why not nuanced blessings? Why not cave to the seamless garment of contraception, abortion, homosexuality, gender theory and LGBTQ pressure groups? In the name of God, salvation and civilization, why not pour gasoline on the fire?
Why not, indeed.
Mr. Shaw has always been able to turn a phrase. From where I stand, the upcoming Synod on Synodolatry is nothing if not “painfully shaky and amateurish.” A decidedly “ramshackle process.”
And his question cuts to the heart of the entire Synodolatry effort: “Doesn’t synodality require letting people say what they think rather than what someone else would like them to think?”
The kind of fresh-faced naïveté Mr. Shaw exhibits just serves to underscore the rankness and putrefaction of the Dark Vatican’s coercive synodolatry.
Why exactly should we be hopeful for something that is thoroughly evil in its very conception? How does “a synodal Church” invite anything other than a permanent validation process of pseudo-Catholic egomania, where every Catholic gets to have his own version of self-worship complete with mock sacramental rites for their favorite sins with all former sources of doctrinal authority safely buried in a Marxist graveyard.
The one sits atop Saint Peter’s seat is quick to criticize those who fear the downward spiral of the Church, while embracing radical ideas concerning it’s future. The “alphabet mafia” has been forcibly inserted into every aspect of our lives, and even encouraged in some.
Marriage is between man and woman. Live with whomever you chose, but unless it is holy union, neither of you is a spouse to the other.
Protect the unborn at every turn. Life begins at conception, and is called a miracle for good reason.
Disavow those who do not follow the Catholic Doctrine. Be it members of the clergy, businesses, politicians, or lay persons. DO NOT offer communion those who partake in and support demonic activities such as blatant “alphabet mafia” inclusions at Churches, support for abortion at ANY time during a pregnancy, and corruption at any level.
Our Church is fractured, and it starts at the top, with the Bishop of Rome’s ideology.
Our fears are well substantiated.
You write: “Granting all that, however, it’s reasonable, even at this late date, to wonder whether “synodality” is precisely the most pressing issue just now. Not only do the world crises just mentioned overshadow it, simply among intra-Church problems that a synod might discuss I’d personally give priority to the shortage of priestly vocations, the virtual disappearance of women’s religious communities, the startling decline in Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence, the growing difficulty of transmitting the faith to the young, and the apathy and religious illiteracy of so many nominal Catholics.”
Perhaps I am missing something, but could this be precisely why we need a synod on synodality, that is, why it is high time we think about becoming a “listening Church”? If I am a teacher, and every year more and more students opt out of my classes in order to get the required credit in summer school, if my students are becoming increasingly disenchanted and skip class whenever they can, if more and more of them are failing my course, the averages are decreasing every semester, then isn’t it wise for me to pause and ask myself: “Could it be something I’m doing or not doing?” Students are voting with their feet, and the results are pretty disconcerting. Perhaps I’m teaching my students the way I was taught, and perhaps that no longer works, because the world is changing, young people are changing, and with a bit of listening, I just may discover that there is a much better way to do things.
Yes, there is a shortage of vocations, the virtual disappearance of women’s religious communities, decline in Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence and a difficulty transmitting the faith to the young and apathy among Catholics. Yes, indeed! Doesn’t that point to the need to listen? Perhaps it is time we stop doing things the ways we’ve always done them. Perhaps those in the pews have far more wisdom and insight that we clergy have given them credit for. Perhaps they see things that we don’t. Perhaps we can learn a great deal if we could learn to shut up and listen for a change. Perhaps we tend to function with a slight “air” that does a great deal to turn people off and away. We’ll never know until we begin to ask and listen to the answers, instead of insisting on being in the position of always providing the answers.
You write: “Frankly, I doubt that “synodality” is the answer to any of these things.”
Frankly, I doubt that doing things the way we’ve always been doing them is the answer to these things.
Frankly, why would you rule out the possibility, actually the certainty that people do evil things and make decisions to do evil things and shut down their minds to good things because of evilness in themselves, and maybe what you call the “wisdom of the people in the pews” is really selfish, willfully ignorant. stupidity, a juvenile baby-rattling defiant pursuit of self-gratification that a Church, mandated by God to be a witness to truth, can never and should never accommodate by validating some imaginary right to allowing them to their juvenile demands?
And where would anyone obtain the preposterous idea that a church of clown liturgies or banal homilies or buffoonish comments from a pope resembles anything that can be characterized as doing “things the same old way”?
After stating “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him”, many of his followers no longer accompanied Him. Jesus did not run after them or modify his words. Trying to change Jesus to suit a confused modern world guarantees failure. Holding on to the core principles of Christianity, while doing our best to evangelize, necessitates a deep act of faith. It is not our job to count the numbers that fall away and modify our beliefs in response (though we may modify our approaches). Everyone is invited. Everyone is free to go or stay.
Your listing of intra Church problems is on the money. Given that we have those problems the Synod seems to be similar to rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic goes down. Only while rearranging the chairs might not be smart, it could not do any additional damage to the ship. Not so with the Synod.
Of the Titanic, there were 2,234 people on board, and due lifeboat standards of the day, 1,529 perished. Who needs more lifeboats when everyone in charge knows that the ship is “unsinkable”? (The Titanic carried boats sufficient to hold 1,132 people if fully loaded, while the ship could accommodate 3,547 individuals.)
According to the conventional wisdom of the day (the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894), Titanic carried lifeboats based on vessel tonnage, not head count, with the lifeboats purposed to mercifully rescue passengers from some other ship actually in trouble, but not the “unsinkable” (!) Titanic…
The metric of the (synodal?) “periphery”, we might say.
Likely are aware that the tragedy of purposely, partly filled lifeboats was due to the many already in the water as the Titanic began to list many falling, some jumping in. Women, children plus a seaman were given immediate priority, many boats in consequence partly filled, also other boats with mixed survivors some partly filled. All [with some exceptions] standing away from the melee of sinking ship, and shouting, screaming people in the freezing water. The partly filled boats were commandeered to remain distant for fear of panic driven overload if they approached to save their fellow passengers. Decisions not to rescue must have been excruciatingly difficult.
Researchers at Wikipedia claim boats 4 and 14 returned to rescue passengers, some which died of exposure. They made heroic decisions to return risking their own lives. It seems a moral decision that would’ve been prudent in either direction. That’s because the rescue boats included passengers that could’ve died if capsized. Unlike fire fighters who risk themselves, not others, or the military who risk their own lives for their brothers during combat.
We who have no dependencies are in like fashion positioned to offer ourselves [at some risk to ourselves] for our brother’s salvation. Such an intent is a most worthy cause to ‘steer’ our emotions, distress during this time of trial in the Church.
And then there’s the research on why the sinking happened in the first place. Certainly confusion of the bridge. We might say, bad bridge-building…
For example, had the ship headed directly into the problem–instead of turning to the Left!–the front compartments would have been flooded, but the ship would not have sunk. Instead, an open 300-foot-long gashed line only a quarter of an inch wide flooded all of the compartments in succession.
Perhaps a lesson for the seven synodal Continental Assemblies…all line up in a row…and all with the same line about openness to moral and ecclesial novelties.
Agreed Thomas. Reference to the Orthodox or Eastern Rites merely seems an allusion at legitimacy of a skewed process. That bishops are jettisoned in the mix as note takers, Cardinals Hollerich SJ and Grech the puppeteers, indicates a prearranged puppet show.
Perhaps, God willing if we survive this a new pontiff will provide correction and reinvigorated faith practice.
This Synod will divide the church, the only solution is to know what side you belong to. The One World Religion or the one you were brought up in and pray. We are still free to choose. May the Blessed Mother help us make the right decision.
Dear ‘Regina’,
Our Most Blessed Mother Mary says to you, & me, & all Catholics: “Whatever Jesus tells you to do, do it!”
The main way to know what Jesus is telling us is to immerse ourselves in The New Testament – the Apostolic testimony to God’s New Covenant in Christ’s Precious Blood.
If we do that, we are indeed doing what Mary, Queen of Heaven, is advising!
Even in the present deep darkness, the Light of Christ, Mary’s Son, is shining bright & clear. Catholics with faith follow, whilst the rest stumble around in the dark subjecting themselves to any false messiah.
Ever in the grace & mercy of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Dear Edward: You ask: “Frankly, why would you rule out the possibility, actually the certainty that people do evil things and make decisions to do evil things and shut down their minds to good things because of evilness in themselves, and maybe what you call the “wisdom of the people in the pews” is really selfish, willfully ignorant. stupidity, a juvenile baby-rattling defiant pursuit of self-gratification that a Church, mandated by God to be a witness to truth, can never and should never accommodate by validating some imaginary right to allowing them to their juvenile demands?”
I’d rule that out because I know the people in the pews. I listen to them, and many of them have far more theology than the newly ordained priest, and so many of them have far more experience than the priest running the parish, a life-experience that clergy typically will lack. That’s why. That you would divide the people into two categories, the enlightened and holy clergy on the one hand, and the unenlightened, selfish laity on the other, reveals your complete ignorance. You’ve forgotten the clerical sex abuse scandals of the 90s and the early 2000s. Perhaps you should spend the afternoon watching The Keepers or Spotlight or perhaps purchase a copy of Leon Podles Sacrilege. The latter should take care of your divide.
You ask: “And where would anyone obtain the preposterous idea that a church of clown liturgies or banal homilies or buffoonish comments from a pope resembles anything that can be characterized as doing “things the same old way”?”
Probably from people on this forum, among others.