Personnel is policy. We all know that. Most of the time, when we use the phrase, we’re referring to ideology.
As I’ve been reflecting on this wasteful distraction of a synod, I can’t help but see another dimension of the truism.
Activities are going to draw people who enjoy those activities.
This, also, seems obvious. But it has implications that are intriguing to consider.
So, let’s take the internet and social media first. For as long as keyboard warriors have existed, observers have decried the “tone” of internet discourse and worried about what it says about human beings in general. I do think that the internet plays a role in both reflecting and shaping our social and cultural discourse—something that will be the focus of my talk at Notre Dame next week—but at the same time, I think it’s important to remember that the voices we read on the internet are the voices of people who…want to be heard on the internet.
I’ve always compared it to the old letters to the editor section of a newspaper.
Was your everyday, standard “letters to the editor” page representative of a community’s views and concerns? Not necessarily, and probably not, in fact. It represented the views of those who went to the trouble to pick up a pen or sit at their typewriter, compose a letter and mail it. That’s going to be someone who has the time and strong enough opinions to bother with all of that—and it’s going to usually be someone with a criticism to voice. How many of us bother to communicate positive messages in a general forum? No, it’s usually disagreement that prompts us to speak up.
So now let’s jump to Church Things:
In the Body of Christ, there are many members, etc., etc. And guess what? We need…most of them. Some could probably be amputated. But yes, we need the liturgy nerds to keep us on track—and we need the spirit-of-the-law people to balance that out and keep us from being legalistic scolds. And so forth. You get it.
So the people who enjoy something like a month-long meeting (as opposed to the people who get roped into it)—are really going to enjoy a month-long meeting. They are people who quite often can’t envision church polity and process without a good meeting to plan it, assess it, and evaluate it at the end.
Now, my take on the Meeting People is uncharitable, frankly. I see the Church Meeting, most of the time, as a way to avoid living out the Gospel in the world, a way of dodging the far more difficult work of plunging into the midst of suffering brothers and sisters—our neighbors, you know—Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy at hand.
Of course it is necessary to meet and plan. But to suggest—insanely, in my view– that every parish should now get that Synodal Process going, guys – is an astonishing, almost shocking admission of indifference to the need of every human being for the healing, life-giving mercy of Christ – right now and a not-so-shocking ignorance of how the Body of Christ through history—in magnificent and flawed ways—has sought to live that out.
Did you know that even with flaws and sins, many, many times in its history, the zillions of members of the Body of Christ have listened to the Spirit as it speaks through the Scriptures and practices and teachings of the Church and then listened to the needs of those around them—and across the world—and actually worked to accompany and serve? In ordinary ways in their daily lives, as well as in extraordinary ways?
Bottom line: Yes, the work of the Body of Christ at every level should be marked by listening, mutual respect and attention to the needs and gifts of a particular community. Yes, times change. And yes, Church life often needs some shaking as it becomes marked by power plays, an elevation of the priorities of a few with particular agendas and a refusal to engage the gifts of those willing to serve and a blindness to the real problems that the community is being called to address.
I mean…can you imagine?
So sure. But, really?
Like the members of the synod, parishioners should be divided into groups of 10 members sitting at round tables.
In addition, at the synod, there was an experienced facilitator to guide the members of each group in the process. The facilitator’s job is not to impose his or her views on the group but to be an impartial moderator who encourages respectful listening and makes sure everyone is able to participate.
Each group also chooses a secretary to draft a report of the group’s discussions.
For a Church that’s supposed to be heading to those margins and peripheries, that’s a lot of energy being put into circular—in more than one way—discussions.
The Meeting People are having their day, to be sure. They’re having a fantastic, selfie-rich, clout-chasing time. They want to impose their particular priority on the entire Body of Christ as its essential identity. And yes, they can do some damage, as can any particular approach, interest or viewpoint if there’s no resistance or balance offered.
Maybe it’s up to the rest of us, then, to get off our tails and off the keyboards—and provide just that.
(Editor’s note: This post appeared originally on the “Charlotte was Both” blog and is reposed here in slightly different form with the kind permission of the author.)
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.
I do remember reading in the Gospel somewhere (I’m unsure which of the Gospel writers) that Christ missioned all of His followers to attend meetings, as often as you can and wherever you can. Christ noted that the way to the Father was small group discussions, mainly discussions around ‘change’ and how we must discuss what we can do to make sinners feel less marginalized. Yes, we need more meetings because people are bored to tears with their humdrum existence and need to feel like their opinion matters. For this, Christ came and died on the cross – so we could have an excuse to have….meetings.
Anyone free to attend a meeting? It only requires a week of your time. Remember, however, that you might be expected to ‘mask up.’ You never know what germs are lurking about and ready to pounce.
How can we bring protests to parishes that host these events that spit in the face of of God?
Knock yourself out. Force your way in. Synodaling is a sham. The didn’t invite believes like you for a reason.
Better to cling to Christ, the Eternal Word of God, and hold out for the victory of His objective Truth.
“Never talk to crazy people.” (Seneca)
It had been done before in some parishes in San Francisco more than 30 years ago. It was called “Renew,” the Delphi method where parishioners engaged in small-group discussions on issues concerning faith and morals, the liturgy and the Church.
The age-old controversies of same-sex relationship, contraception and abortion, divorce and remarriage, women clergy, priestly celibacy and politically-correct liturgical songs many times appeared directly or indirectly on the Renew agenda.
The results were disastrous. Quiet often, a few older parishioners got upset and walked away in tears.
How and why it didn’t work: A facilitator (usually a liberal ex-nun from the archdiocesan office) presented the topics from prepared booklets by Renew International. The procedure was to be done under the “principle” of individual views having equal weight and value and must not be judged. As a result, it often led to groupthink, as participants were reluctant to express dissenting opinions for fear of being seen as not aligning with the group.
The facilitator moderated the meeting and acted as the referee (sometimes, the judge) between opposing opinions. At the end of the session, facilitator summarized what took place and evaluated the resulting “majority” opinion. It often occurred that the interpretation of the facilitator was inaccurate or reflected Renew’s progressive agenda. It was then that chaos happened.
I supposed such a synodal process could work if participants were equally catechized and have a modicum knowledge of scripture, doctrine, and liturgy. But oftentimes, the “winning” opinions were from the doctrinally-illiterates and turned out to be heretical. Or answers so ambiguous to be both “yes” and “no.”
A facilitator might justify the strange views as leading to a legitimate “development of doctrine”, referencing both St. Vincent Lerin and St. Cardinal Newman. But I believed such ambiguous answers were actually “near occasions of sin.”
My take: During confession, we recite the Act of Contrition, resolving, with the help of the Lord’s grace, not just “to sin no more” but also “to avoid near occasions of sin.” Why is the resolve to avoid near occasions of sin included the Act of Contrition when they are, like temptation, not technically sin? (Rhetorical question.)
With the Synod using the same Delphi method to dress up ambiguous answers as “development of doctrine,” I’m afraid the “resolve to avoid near occasions of sin” might be excised from the traditional Act of Contrition.
In contemporary organizational theory, there is a truism that says meetings when misunderstood and overdone can give the illusion that an actual activity of work is being done.
Yes! Motion is not necessarily ‘progress’, but there are many who want us to believe it to be.
“In addition, at the synod, there was an experienced facilitator to guide the members of each group in the process. The facilitator’s job is not to impose his or her views on the group… ”
****
It seems like a flashback from the 1960’s & 70’s. Sensitivity training, listening sessions, nondirective therapy,…
We Overcame Their Traditions, We Overcame Their Faith
A contrite Catholic psychologist’s disturbing testimony about his central role in the destruction of religious orders.
“Dr. William Coulson was a disciple of the influential American psychologist Carl Rogers, and for many years a co-practitioner of the latter’s “nondirective” therapy. In 1964 he became chief of staff at Rogers’ Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla, Ca., where, he says, as the resident Catholic it became his task to “gather a cadre of facilitators to invade the IHM community” of nuns-and later some two dozen other orders, among them the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of Providence, and the Jesuits. It was only in 1971 that he began to “back away” from his belief in psychotherapy, when its destructive effects on the religious orders-and on the Church and society in general- became apparent to him.”
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/we-overcame-their-traditions-we-overcame-their-faith-11916
The same team tried Rogerian therapy at Cal Tech but the scientists, led by Richard Feynman pushed back and the institution was not destroyed.
I had a dreadful experience many years ago with this kind of small group dynamics during opinion gathering for the planned US Bishops’ document on women. The set-up was so manipulative and design to bring in “correct” liberal conclusions. Happily, that snake-bitten document was never written.
Finally someone targeted meetings. Amy Welborn makes her case very well, including the appointment of personnel as indicative of policy. Although her sarcasm is so good that I had to reread whether she meant what she said.
There is a specific evil, besides the evil of boredom, the insufferable evil of listening to someone mercilessly drone on. The evil of being trapped in endless meetings, whereas what really matters is what Amy says prevents us from ‘plunging’ into the midst of suffering brothers and sisters. That specific evil is a Synodal Church of endless meetings of a unique, strange nature. A presumption of acquiring exceptional knowledge, whose purpose is to liberate oneself from moral recidivism, to be free to express our views without being locked in static ideology. Synodality, the term used repeatedly, incantation similar to cultic practice in different forms to entirely incorporate our lives and the life of the Church. A new worship crafted in the depths of darkness.
Wow, I really don’t know where to go with this article except to say that it is wrong in so many ways especially as it places people into uncaring group of egotistic Catholics. We as a Church have to go out to where the sinners are and meet them in their own house. If we don’t talk and listen to these people, we will never understand how to bring the Word to them. Are there things we are not going to not like to hear, yes but we must go and bring Christ to all God’s people. It is way to easy to just sit back with one’s knowledge and interpret this knowledge as one preferred understanding. It is sad to see that some in today’s Church are in the same political discord we find in the USA today. Remember, it is not about you either.
Are there things we are not going to not like to hear, yes but we must go and bring Christ to all God’s people.
There will be things we should like but don’t hear, so we then shake the dust from our sandals and leave that house. We don’t linger, gathering more sod to further corrupt ourselves and further stain the image of the Lord.
Forgot to add quotes around Olbat’s quote:
“Are there things we are not going to not like to hear, yes but we must go and bring Christ to all God’s people.”