The synodal process has been a very exciting period for the Church; a change from “teaching church” to “listening church” has been on the way. Being able to observe the process from its national to continental and global level provides me with optimism and hope for future consultations.
The Continental Phase
Coming from Romania and now working in Austria, I understood a gap between the churches in Western and Eastern Europe. A number of bishops from Eastern Europe, for example, were sceptical about the deliberations of this World Synod, in which lay Catholics also took part on a large scale for the first time.
I recall the Continental Assembly in Prague last February: there, church representatives from Western Europe were surprised by how the church in Eastern Europe thinks. Through the synodal process we have moved a little closer to each other, but there is still room for improvement.
One of the challenges, for instance, could be: How to deal with questions that we think are not our topics? Can we look at reality in such a way, for example in Eastern Europe, that we also let those topics come a little closer to us?
I believe there is space for the bishops’ conferences and the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences (CCEE) to think about strategies until the next synod in Rome. Since the General Assembly I have registered a positive feedback from the synod participants from Eastern Europe, an overcoming a gap and improving cooperation seems more possible than before.
In Rome, the bishops experienced the Church in its diversity and Catholicity, and in conversations with laypeople and bishops from other countries and continents they were able to recognize the realities of their lives. The spiritual conversation method used at the Synod was also very well received.
It’s always important in the church in Eastern Europe that when it comes to changes, it can’t just take place on a cognitive level. Where the Holy Spirit is explicitly left out, it becomes difficult. But that may also apply in other parts of the world.
Change happens when we listen to each other and not because we always know better what the other person should do. It is therefore important to stay in conversation with each other instead of talking about each other.
The Synodal Assembly
Coming from “I” to “We” is one of the biggest challenges of current process and the future of the Catholic Church.
The synodal meeting in Rome has just provided a prime example of the theological consideration of different approaches to Church reform. While for some it is important not to change the teaching, others want to look at the signs of the times. To renew the Church, we need both parts the “cairological” and the “criteriological.”
The big challenge will be how these two approaches deal with each other to get a good future for the church. It is important to recognize and respect the concerns of others that we do not share, and this applies not least to the Church in Europe.
We cannot look at the situation of the Church in Western Europe only when assessing the current world synod in the Vatican. The interim synthesis report at the end of the first session is a preparatory paper for next year’s assembly and a document in which everyone can find themselves. It is clear that this is not a great success for some in Western Europe; yet for some bishops it was the first time they were sitting together with lay people and really listening to them. There is no going back; the World Synod has begun a process that is irreversible.
But we have to learn what it means to be able to participate more, how does that work, how do we listen to the Holy Spirit together, how do I put myself behind again and again, how do I listen and discern?
We lay people often think that the bishops have to learn this. No, the laity have to learn this as well. This is a common learning process for the people of God. Pope Francis doesn’t want to make decisions for everyone from above; instead he wants to look together at what a missionary Church should be like today.
He could, of course, decide many things himself. For many that would perhaps no longer be the Catholic Church, while for others it would still not be enough. Despite all the differences between local churches, there was no argument at the synodal meeting in Rome, but rather a fascination of wonderful diversity.
We live in different contexts, with different challenges and interpretations of the world, which makes us realise more and more how important and beautiful diversity is and can be.
Diversity in unity, because what binds us together also unites us: our love in Jesus Christ, the sacraments and the meaning of the resurrection, namely, to make it possible for people to experience that not death but life and love can have the last word here and now.
The conversation method with a three-step process of active listening, speaking from the heart and prayer was essential, because it made the Holy Spirit tangible in the auditorium and for four weeks. No one was interrupted, participants had time to bring their perspective in the group and give feedback on different positions and perceptions of realities in different local churches. This was also a learning process of how to deal with tensions.
If we want to be a synodal church, we necessarily need to learn this. During the four-week Synod meeting theology played a smaller role than some would have liked. That simply has to do with the fact that theology doesn’t have the same importance everywhere as it does, for instance, in German-speaking countries.
The Church should better incorporate theological know-how, I believe. The Second Vatican Council would be inconceivable if we had not had this deep theology back then, which continues to shape the long-term renewal of the Church to this day.
The consultations and theological work on topics such as authority in a synodal Church and the role of women would now continue. The synthesis paper approved by the Synod members contains concrete suggestions on what needs to be worked on by the next assembly in autumn 2024.
And I definitely see a strong message to the theological community about how they can get more involved. We must not forget that no area of modern life can allow itself to miss out its scientific community. That would be a disaster for most areas of life and sometimes also for us humans.
Many tensions that exist in the Church today can be smoothed out with a refreshment of Vatican II. This includes, for example, the dynamic understanding of tradition, the valorisation of the laity in the Church, or the liturgical meaning and unity of the Holy Three Days, the value of diaconal ministry, the necessary consideration of modern scientific research for our theological reflections and responses.
Moving forward
I think that a synodal methodology has proved as a valuable and functional model for this process of change to being more and more a synodal Church. Any further steps will need to be carried in the atmosphere of listening to others without prejudice, even if their sensibilities do not coincide with our own.
Take a German situation: the church in Germany, as well as other churches, is not doing very well. It is suffering, especially from the abuse crisis. My suggestion at this point is to simply show solidarity and listen to this suffering. This could be a sign of solidarity; we should not blame the suffering church.
We should remember that German church has greatly supported Eastern European churches after the fall of communism. Thanks to this support the churches were able to live and develop in democratic societies. Now the material solidarity of the West can be returned with our non-material solidarity.
We should not look away and say this is not a Catholic Church any more. Instead, we should ask how we can help with our ear, eye, and above all, our heart. Similarly, we should not always “know better” than others.
In Hungary, for instance, it is often said that we want to be free, both in politics and in the Church. For some it means being free from Western liberalism. It could be a fear behind this that the local churches and society are unsettled.
What would happen when people were suddenly allowed to decide for themselves, if they chose a lifestyle which no longer corresponds to our traditionalist images and ideas about family? It could lead to rejection and preference of doctrines and Church morals which should be obeyed.
A big challenge is therefore how a Church can stay with people, regardless of their gender, nationality or religion. There are some places in Hungary, for example, for which non-judgemental attitude is very important and they don’t push their ideas or correct other people.
I believe we should really start listening before we teach – and that is exactly what has been happening at this Synod: we listen to each other, remain silent and don’t always know better what the other has to do, but we stand by them.
A synodal Church does not talk about others, but strives to remain in dialogue with all people of our time. It is about seeking to understand better and better the story that God is writing with the world and with humanity today, to heal the wounds of this story, our relationship with each other, our relationship with the environment, our relationship with the youth, with the elderly and the vulnerable, with migrants, with all those who are marginalised and exploited.
This is mission, to overcome ourselves, our fears and to perform the love of God in the world, without fear, but with love for Christ and his world.
Prof. Klara Csiszar is Professor of Pastoral Theology, Dean of the Faculty of Theology Interim Head of Institute of Catechetics, Religious Education, and Pedagogy at the Private Catholic University in Linz Austri
