There were mixed reactions to the recent Synod of Bishops in Rome. Many of the participants, ordained and non-ordained, stressed the richness of the experience, the peace and even joy which permeated it.
They noted too its demanding nature and the need for stamina as the deep listening, the inevitable boring interludes and the attendant tensions and clashes took their toll. Overall they expressed clear endorsement of the synodal process initiated by Pope Francis, the first time an endorsement had been given at such a senior ecclesial level.
Outsiders- and many of the participants too- noted some of the limitations. Many of the over 80 proposals seemed rather general and vague; some nettles were not seen to be grasped (even James Martin, a participant, was disappointed at the lack of specific reference to the LGBTQ community); there was a sense that the final Synthesis Document was somewhat flat and lacked some of the urgency and radicalism of earlier documents from national and regional churches.
Our own Mary McAleese spoke of ‘the unmistakable sound of multiple cans being kicked down the road’. However this was echoed to different effect by one of the participants, African Jesuit Agbonkhianmeghe Orobator, who noted with regard to the issue of women’s leadership in particular that ‘…one of the things I experienced was that we cannot simply continue to…kick the can down the road. We have to engage with it. I think the moment is now’, and observed also with regard to the LGBTQ community that ‘…no issue is finalized…the space in there to continue the conversation’. So where does all this leave us?
Well, there are solid grounds for hope, not least in some aspects of the Synod that have received little attention to date. So, while the ‘conversation in the Spirit’ methodology remains, correctly, the privileged way of conducting synodal affairs, not least because of its ability to hold together difference and conflict in creative tension, still the Roman Synod noted that it had limitations.
Integration
Specifically it called for a better integration of the intellectual and the emotional, thus opening the door for more theological depth over the journey ahead. In particular, to clarify the meaning of synodality itself, it was proposed that two documents of the International Theological Commission (on the Sense of the Faith, in 2014, and on Synodality, in 2018) be studied.
This study will certainly reveal some truths which so far have remained relatively hidden in the synodal process: namely, that synods are a privileged place for discerning the sense of faith of the faithful, that this has to do with Church teaching, and that there is a protocol already developed in main line Catholic Theology about what to do when current non-dogmatic Church teaching is received with either indifference or rejection by the faithful.
In such instances, according to the ITC document, we must seek to clarify the teaching, or, if that fails, to reformulate or, with the help of theology, to revise.
Adequate
And so, when the Synthesis report opens up this door, and goes on to note that on many of the controversial issues to do with sexuality and gender it may well be that the Church’s ‘anthropological categories’ have not taken adequate account of the sciences and human experience, and that there is need for more dialogue between the ology and the human sciences in particular, there is implicit mention at the heart of this synodal process of the need for doctrinal development.
This need was adverted to explicitly in the run-up to the Synod by Pope Francis himself when in an interview with Portuguese Jesuits and his formal reply to the ‘dubia’ he recalled that, again, mainline Catholic theology allows for doctrinal evolution, instancing the Church’s change of stance on slavery and the death penalty as two concrete moments among many others of such evolution, and, while repeating the current teaching on the ordination of women, noting that its designation as ‘definitive’ still requires further maturation – ‘Let us recognise that a clear and authoritative doctrine on the exact nature of a “definitive statement” has not yet been fully developed’.
This means that teaching itself is open to further study. Mind you, the Synthesis document itself tends to view this issue of change in Church teaching through the lens of a tension between truth and love, to be resolved through a pastoral application of the truth in the concrete circumstances of life.
This, it seems to suggest, mirrors the mercy of God in Jesus Christ while avoiding any notion of ‘cheap grace’. But, as the ITC documents and the witness of the Pope himself suggest, is there not another possibility, namely, that in some cases the Church herself (because of the admitted lack of engagement theologically with the human sciences and the sense of faith of the faithful) is not correctly teaching the meaning of the gospel message in today’s world, that the doctrine requires development and revision?
This approach would seem to be very much in line with the talk given at the Synod by Australian theologian Osmond Rush when he observed that it seemed that the disputed notion of tradition was behind many of the difficulties encountered by the participants, as it had been in Vatican II as analysed by the then Joseph Ratzinger.
Rush noted Ratzinger’s distinction between a notion of tradition as static, ahistorical, legalistic and propositional and one which is dynamic, personalist, sacramental and rooted in history and therefore to be interpreted with an historical consciousness, with a clear preference for the latter.
So, there is an opportunity here, with this encouragement of a deeper theological engagement with the issue of synodality and of the controversial issues in particular, that we as Church may begin to tackle more head-on some obstacles to mission that continue to impede us.
That won’t be easy of course – the potential for not just conflict but even schism is real, and the synodal participants are well aware of this.
Reality
Nonetheless it is surely better to name reality and face it head on when the ground has been laid to do so, than to continue to repress it and be poisoned by the consequences.
Time to break the silence, as Cardinal Mario Grech said on the lead-up to the Synod. And we all, and the synodal participants in particular, are in a better position to do that having laid a foundation of mutual respect throughout the process so far.
We are accustomed now to speak of ‘unity in diversity’ – it remains to extend the range of this expression to issues of church teaching and seek some kind of resolution There are no guarantees in any of this, except in our hope in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit (the chief protagonist in the synodal process, as Pope Francis never tires of saying).
But this hope has to express itself also in human daring: discernment in its deepest sense does not exhaust itself with patient prayer and waiting, it must submit itself also to decision, even, as Ladislas Orsy once argued, to the ‘paradox of peaceful mistakes’, the possibility that we will get things wrong and have to go back and revise the revision. I suspect that most of the synodal participants are still a long way from the possibilities I have sketched here.
But it is also true that the kind of ‘naming’ of reality that is going on now within the Catholic Church would have been unimaginable even a short few years ago. We are indeed, also in the Church, living in a ‘change of era’, as Pope Francis has often said.
Crossroads
We are then at another crossroads. It seems clear that we are intent on going down the road of a ‘differentiated co-responsibility’, with all the cultural, institutional, structural and legal changes involved (including the mandatory nature of parish and diocesan councils), so that the priority of baptism is recognised effectively and women in particular will be part of decision making.
It is clear that we want to take seriously issues like the poor, climate change, migration, war and peace; that we are aware that the issue of abuse is still an ‘open wound’ that needs to be addressed; that we wish to broaden the synodal enterprise ecumenically and inter-religiously; that we want to deepen our encounter with Jesus Christ, to recover our missionary spirit based on this encounter.
Can we also take on board the controversial issues of church teaching that divide us and remain as real obstacles to mission? This synodal process is opening a door for us to do that.
Finally, our Irish bishops have given a good lead over these last few years in promoting the synodal pathway in Ireland. We need now to hear more from Bishops Brendan Leahy and Alan McGuckian about their experience in Rome, and from all the bishops about how, in dialogue with the rest of us, they propose to map out the next stage of our journey here at home.
Gerry O’Hanlon SJ, theologian and author.
